ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Energy Res., 19 January 2023

Sec. Solar Energy

Volume 10 - 2022 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2022.1061408

Hybrid kernel search and particle swarm optimization with Cauchy perturbation for economic emission load dispatch with valve point effect

  • 1. College of Information and Control Engineering, Jilin Institute of Chemical Technology, Jilin, China

  • 2. College of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, Wenzhou University, Wenzhou, China

  • 3. School of Surveying and Geospatial Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

  • 4. Department of Information Technology, Wenzhou Polytechnic, Wenzhou, China

Abstract

Due to growing concerns over environmental protection, economic and environmentally responsible power dispatching has become a hot topic in the field of power system control. Multi-objective optimization minimizes fuel costs and pollution emissions without violating operational constraints. To solve this problem, the MOP is decomposed into individual objects via the weighted sum method, and Newton’s method is used to tackle equality constraints iteratively. To this end, a hybrid algorithm (HKSOPSO-CP) based on kernel search optimization (KSO) and particle swarm optimization (PSO) with Cauchy perturbation is proposed in this paper. An experiment with 23 CEC benchmark functions shows that HKSOPSO-CP offers better performance compared with various popular algorithms proposed in recent years. When employed to solve the IEEE standard economic emission dispatch (EED) problems with 6, 10, 40, and 110 units, the proposed HKSOPSO-CP algorithm produces results indicating a better trade-off between the objectives relating to fuel costs and emissions compared to other algorithms that have recently been reported on in the literature.

1 Introduction

The goal of economic dispatch (ED) is to schedule power generation to minimize the cost of producing electricity within the confines of operational constraints, such as the demand load and transmission loss. Decision makers in energy fields need effective hybrid models in order to reduce the cost of operations as much as possible (; ; ). Even minor improvements in the operation of power plants can bring substantial economic benefits. Furthermore, thermal power plants inevitably emit a large amount of pollution during the operation of power systems, which has become a critical issue with increasing concerns over global warming. Therefore, the problem of simultaneous combined minimization of fuel costs and pollutant emissions, known as the economic emission dispatch (EED) problem, has become a research focus.

With people’s increasing awareness of pollutant emissions, the economic emission dispatch problem (EED), which seeks to minimize fuel costs and pollution, has been a growing concern. The EED problem represents a multi-objective optimization problem (MOP) (). The aim in solving it is to find the best possible power distribution for each generator without violating the relevant constraints. In order to solve this type of problem, various techniques have been developed.

Optimization methods can be regarded as falling into various classes, including deterministic, stochastic, and evolutionary (). Traditional methods attempt to guarantee exact solutions (), while in contrast, recent evolutionary methods cannot guarantee the identification of trustworthy optimal solutions, and it is regarded as sufficient to return solutions only satisfying local optima (). Recently, many studies have been conducted to solve the EED problem. There is a growing interest in many modern random-based metaheuristic algorithms (MAs), because they do not need any derivative information or gradient information in the search process (); these methods include particle swarm optimization (PSO) (; ), the colony predation algorithm (CPA) (), hunger games search (HGS) (), Harris hawks optimization (HHO) (), the slime mould algorithm (SMA) (), the weighted mean of vectors (INFO) (), and the Runge Kutta optimizer (RUN) (), which have yielded great success in a variety of fields, such as feature selection (; ), economic emission dispatch (), bankruptcy prediction (; ), train scheduling (), image segmentation (; ), multi-objective problems (; ), gate resource allocation (; ), complex optimization problems (), resource allocation (), expensive optimization problems (; ), airport taxiway planning (), robust optimization (), scheduling problems (; ; ), and medical diagnosis () (). used fuzzy computing to solve EED problems using a modified bacterial foraging algorithm (MBFA). Roy and Bhui used quasi-oppositional teaching learning based optimization (QOTLBO) () to solve the problem of EED with valve point loading. used an improved scatter search (ISS) to solve EED problems; experimental results showed that the ISS method achieves a better optimal result than other optimization algorithms.

Yang () proposed the flower pollination algorithm (FPA). This approach can meet the needs of single-objective and multi-objective optimization problems, so it has strong universality in tackling various problems in the domain of power systems. Therefore, used the FPA to solve the EED problem. Simulation results show that the FPA method achieves better results than other methods for various optimization problems, especially for large power systems. proposed the Pareto bee colony optimization algorithm and applied it to the standard IEEE 30-bus system to tackle the EED problem. The experimental results were better than those achieved by other multi-objective optimization algorithms. Singh and Dhillon used an opposition-based greedy heuristic search (OGHS) () to tackle the power system scheduling problem. In this type of problem, an initial population is randomly generated by means of a uniform distribution, and the inverse solution is generated by means of oppositional learning. The optimal solution is retained for further optimization, which is beneficial to accelerate the convergence rate. tackled the EED problem using a combination of a genetic algorithm (GA) and particle search optimization (PSO). adopted an improved version of the slime mould algorithm (ISMA) to solve the EED problem, enhancing its search capabilities and balancing global and local search. The results showed that, compared with other optimization algorithms, the ISMA method achieves better optimization. Dong et al. proposed a kernel search optimization algorithm (KSO) (; ) to solve the EED problem. By projecting the function from low-dimensional space to high-dimensional space, the non-linear problem can be transformed into a linear problem. In comparison with other algorithms, better optimal results are obtained.

As mentioned above, the identification of a better multi-objective optimization algorithm is always a research hotspot in the field of power system scheduling optimization. Such improvements take a great deal of effort, and even a small change represents a major improvement in environmental and economic terms. This article proposes an enhanced new metaheuristic for optimization, which uses kernel techniques from the KSO algorithm combined with a PSO algorithm, to tackle the EED problem. The main contributions of this paper can be summarized as follows:

  • • The local search ability of the KSO algorithm is improved by introducing sociality and self-recognition from the PSO algorithm. The update to the kernel vector in KSO is calculated based on the current velocity and position of the particle instead of via randomization.

  • • The Cauchy distribution approaches 0 more slowly than the normal distribution, so Cauchy mutation has the better disturbance ability. Cauchy mutation is utilized to update the target position to expand the distribution area of feasible solutions and improve the algorithm’s global optimization performance.

  • • A hybrid KSO and PSO algorithm with Cauchy perturbation is utilized to solve the EED problem. Moreover, the weighted sum method transforms the multi-objective EED into a single-objective problem, and the Newton–Raphson method handles the power balance constraint.

  • • The HKSOPSO-CP algorithm is verified by solving EED problem cases involving four electrical systems. It is thereby demonstrated that the proposed algorithms can provide better solutions to EED problems than conventional KSO and other algorithms entered into this comparison.

  • • Under testing with 23 CEC benchmark functions, the HKSOPSO-CP algorithm outperforms KSO and several other well-known algorithms in accuracy.

The remainder of this article is organized as follows: Section 2 lays out the mathematical model of the EED problem; Section 3 presents the original KSO and PSO algorithms and the Cauchy mutation mechanism, as well as the new HKSOPSO-CP algorithm; Section 4 presents the experimental results and analysis; and Section 5 provides the conclusion.

2 The economic emission dispatch problem

In the EED problem, the objective is to minimize fuel costs while simultaneously minimizing pollutant emissions by identifying the generator schedule that represents the best compromise.

2.1 The objective function

The objective function of the fuel costs can be expressed as follows ():where C is the fuel cost in the problem to be solved; , , and represent the cost coefficients for the th unit; and represent the valve point effect coefficients; represents the power output; and indicates the number of generating units.

The total emission of pollutants can be defined as follows ():where is the pollution emission in the problem to be solved, and , , and represent the emission coefficients of the th generator.

There are two different objectives in this multi-objective optimization problem. The weighted sum method decomposes the MOP into individual objectives to solve this problem. The method combines conflicting objectives by introducing weight factors. The combined objective function takes the following form ():where w is the weight factor and is the scaling factor.

2.2 System constraints

  • 1) Power balance constraints: the total power of all the generators must cover the sum of the load demand and the losses of the real power system (),

where

is the loss coefficient,

represents the number of generators,

represents the transmission losses, and

represents the system load.

  • 2) Power capacity limitation: Each generator’s output must fall within its relative output range (maximum-minimum),

where

and

are the operational limits for the

th generating unit.

The inequality constraint of Eq. 5 can be easily satisfied by setting the upper limit and lower limit in the initialization stage. But the equality constraint of Eq. 4 is usually difficult to satisfy. Therefore, Newton’s method is used to tackle the constraints iteratively:where is the output of the th generating unit.

It is possible to solve Eq. 4 iteratively for the original output of the Nth generator:

The transmission loss of the power system can be expressed in the form of B-matrix coefficients ():where is the original output of the generator.

Subsequently, the new output of the Nth generator can be calculated as follows:

The new output of the Nth generator is then substituted into Eq. 8 until the difference between them is less than some minimal value.

The Nth generator , following the above steps, is able to fulfill the equality constraint of Eq. 4, but it is uncertain whether its output falls within the feasible domain or not. Therefore, a common penalty function is utilized here as an effective way to address this.

For Eq. 10, an efficient method employing a penalty function is applied to determine whether the output of the Nth generator that satisfies the constraint of Eq. 4 is within the feasible region.where is a penalty factor.

3 The principle of the HKSOPSO-CP algorithm

The conventional KSO algorithm and the improved HKSOPSO-CP technique developed using the PSO algorithm and Cauchy perturbation are described in this section.

3.1 Overview of the KSO algorithm

KSO, proposed by Dong () in 2020, is a novel swarm intelligence algorithm whose search strategy is based on the kernel method. KSO was inspired by existing physical or biological MAs, but differs markedly from them: all the MAs mentioned above involve non-linear iterations to approach the optimal values of the target functions, but KSO involves linear iteration via the kernel method. The inspiration is as follows.

The non-linear objective function , can be converted into a linear one in higher-dimensional space by a mapping function . As the dimensionality of the space increases, the possibility of a non-linear function being transformed into a linear function becomes stronger. This is represented as:where m is the dimensionality of the higher-dimensional space, and and are both m-dimensional vectors.

An m-dimensional vector of is mapped from the n-dimensional vector , that is . The slope of a hyperplane in m dimensions is the direction along which the optimal value lies, denoted by ; then:where is the kernel function.

As a function in a higher-dimensional space, the optimal value is the solution of the lower-dimensional objective function.

The RBF function maps the objective function to an infinitely high-dimensional space () (KSO), which may transform a non-linear function into a linear function. Therefore, the RBF function is used:

The optimization results of the fitted kernel function are considered to approximately represent the minimum of the objective function; these results are converged on by several iterations to bring them close to the best possible result. At the same time, Eq. 12 provides an approximate solution to the optimization problem by a single iteration of the objective function.

The minimum value of the formula is given directly.where , and the minimum is .

Based on Eq. 13, it can be seen that the minimum value is at the boundary, or vector a is equivalent to it, corresponding to the low-dimensional pre-image mapped to the high-dimensional hyperplane slope. The vector a is referred to as the kernel vector, which points the searches made in the iterative optimization process in a particular direction. Specifically, it is solved for via Eq. 14.

To solve Eq. 14, posit a random vector ; the th item of the primitive vector x is replaced by the corresponding item of temp1, forming a new vector The new vectors form a matrix whose function is .

Then,

Similarly, positing a further random vector , conduct the same operations following . Then,

After obtaining a and σ, x is updated for the next iteration as follows:where t and are the current and maximum number of iterations, respectively.

3.2 Overview of the PSO algorithm

The particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm was designed and developed by Eberhart and Kennedy (1995) based on the simulation of social behavior (). Specifically, PSO was inspired by a simulation of the flocking behaviors of birds and uses velocity and position equations to search for optimal behavior. Social and cognitive factors influence the velocity of each particle. In other words, one notable aspect of PSO is the trade-off between the current and previous best options. The position of the particle’s optimum fitness value is regarded as the local best (), while the position with the highest fitness value is regarded as the global best (). In the search space, any particle is treated as a point. All particles attempt to update their positions using the following model:where is the velocity of the th particle at the th iteration represented by an n-dimensional vector; and are random numbers between 0 and 1; w is the factor of inertia weight; and are the acceleration constants; is the individual best fitness value achieved by the th particle at the th iteration, based on its own experience; is the best particle position based on all individual best positions; is the position of the th particle at the th iteration; and is the current number of iterations.

In the initialization process, the particle swarm optimization algorithm initializes particles randomly in the search space and approaches the optimal position continuously through iteration. At each iteration, the velocity of the particle is calculated via Eq. 18, and the position of the particle is then updated via Eq. 19. The process of updating the particle’s position continues until the stop condition is met.

3.3 Cauchy perturbation

A Cauchy perturbation is derived from a Cauchy distribution, which has the following probability density ():where is the position parameter defining the peak of the distribution, and is the scale parameter at half of the maximum value.

When , the distribution is considered a standard Cauchy distribution.

The Cauchy distribution takes a very wide range of values, and even very large values have some probability of occurring. The Cauchy distribution approaches 0 more slowly than the normal distribution, so the Cauchy mutation has better disturbance ability than the normal variation. The Cauchy mutation is introduced into the target position updating technique, and the Cauchy operator uses its perturbation ability to enhance the algorithm’s global optimization performance.

3.4 Hybrid HKSOPSO-CP algorithm with Cauchy perturbation

The proposed HKSOPSO-CP algorithm is put forward in order to enhance the ability of the primitive KSO approach to identify local optima through hybridization with the PSO algorithm and to enhance the range of feasible solutions identified by the algorithm using Cauchy perturbation. The KSO algorithm projects the objective function from low-dimensional to high-dimensional space. With the increase in dimensionality, the non-linear objective function gradually tends toward becoming linear. Compared with other algorithms, the KSO algorithm has good global search ability and a good optimization effect when facing high-dimension objective functions, but it has no obvious advantage when dealing with a low-dimension objective function. The PSO algorithm has strong optimization ability when the dimensionality of the objective function is low and has good local search ability. The advantages of the PSO algorithm and KSO algorithm are combined to improve the local search ability of KSO so as to balance exploration and exploitation. At the same time, the Cauchy distribution is utilized to expand the distribution range of feasible solutions and further improve the global search ability of the algorithm when dealing with various scenarios.

The KSO update formula Eq. 17 is combined with the PSO update formula Eq. 18, resulting in the following proposed update formula:

Subsequently, the Cauchy mutation operator is employed to perturb and mutate the new solution obtained by Eq. 22, and the update formula is calculated by Eq. 23, which improves the algorithm’s capacity to jump out of local optimum situations.

Finally, the full update formula of the HHKSOPSO-CP algorithm with Cauchy perturbation can be expressed as follows:

The HKSOPSO-CP algorithm seeks out the optimal value by exploring the activity of many particles within the feasible region. In the initialization phase, the algorithm generates particles randomly in the feasible region and approaches the optimal position continuously through iteration. In each iteration, the velocity of each particle is calculated using Eq. 18; the position of the particle is then updated using Eq. 24, and finally the distribution range of the solution is extended by Cauchy mutation. The particle updating behavior does not stop until the end condition is met.

In summary, this paper describes the process of using the HKSOPSO-CP algorithm to solve the EED problem, which involves the following steps:

Step 1:Initialize HKSOPSO-CP parameters, including , , , , .

Step 2:Generate a random population of N particles and initialize particle .

Step 3:Calculate the current power of the generator for every particle in the current population; calculate the objective function values of , , , and the generation matrix .

Step 4:Calculate the fitness value for all particles.

Step 5:Calculate and using Eq. 15 and Eq. 16.

Step 6:Calculate according to Eq. 13 and determine whether it is the optimal solution.

Step 7:Calculate the velocity and position of all particles using Eq. 18 and Eq. 19.

Step 8:Generate new feasible solutions using Eq. 24.

Step 9:Go to Step 3 until the end condition is met.A flowchart representing the steps of the HKSOPSO-CP algorithm is provided in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

4 Experimental results

The effectiveness of the HKSOPSO-CP algorithm is verified by the CEC standard test system and EED problem with four test cases with and without valve points ().

We conducted all tests under fair comparison conditions (; ; ). A potentially helpful factor in this respect is that all variables in the computing system exert a uniform effect on the performance of the compared algorithms, as per other AI-based work (; ). The performance of HKSOPSO-CP is compared with the original KSO, PSO, and other recent algorithms. All algorithms were implemented in Matlab 2020b and ran on an Intel Core CPU (8 CPU), 32 GB RAM system.

4.1 Comparison on CEC benchmark functions

In this section, the proposed HKSOPSO-CP algorithm is compared with the original KSO, PSO, and other algorithms proposed in recent years, such as SOA (), TSA (), SSA (), RSA (), BWOA (), and COCA (). Tables 1–3 give the 23 CEC benchmark functions used in the experimental study, including unimodal test functions, multimodal test functions, and multimodal test functions with fixed dimensionality.

TABLE 1

Test functionFunction bodySearch range
Sphere
Schwefel 2.22
Schwefel 1.2
Schwefel 2.21
Rosenbrock
Step
Quartic

Unimodal test functions.

TABLE 2

Test functionFunction bodySearch range
Schwefel 2.26
Rastrigin
Ackley
Griewank
Penalized
Penalized 2

Multimodal test functions.

TABLE 3

Test functionFunction bodySearch range
Foxholes
Kowalik
Six-hump Camel Branin
Goldstein–Price
Hartmann 3
Hartmann 6
Shekel 5
Shekel 7
& as
Shekel 10
&as

Multimodal test functions with fixed dimensionality.

Table 4 illustrates the experimental results, including the worst, average, and best results over 30 runs. It can be seen that HKSOPSO-CP achieved the best results in most of the tests. In terms of the best result, HKSOPSO-CP obtained better results with 19 of the test functions, followed by KSO and COCA. In terms of the average result, HKSOPSO-CP again achieved the best results with 19 of the test functions, followed by COCA and KSO. Its advantages are especially apparent in dealing with multimodal test functions. The results show that HKSOPSO-CP may be capable of outperforming the algorithms included in the comparison carried out here. Therefore, HKSOPSO-CP is an effective method for handling various complex problems that require a strong search ability.

TABLE 4

FMeasureCOCABWOARSASOASSATSAKSOHKSOPSO-CP
F1Worst1.0190E+003.4358E−05.0000E+002.9894E−213.3675E−026.4319E−382.6139E−09.0000E+00
Average9.6188E−013.4358E−05.0000E+001.2293E−211.1246E−026.0539E−382.5734E−09.0000E+00
Best8.7604E−013.4358E−05.0000E+001.2428E−234.3367E−225.6760E−382.5412E−09.0000E+00
F2Worst1.4761E−011.2711E−03.0000E+001.6758E−136.7206E+005.1187E−225.5587E−03.0000E+00
Average1.3751E−019.1668E−04.0000E+007.9835E−142.2970E+002.9663E−225.4972E−03.0000E+00
Best1.2080E−012.0793E−04.0000E+001.8978E−148.8133E−108.1388E−235.4564E−03.0000E+00
F3Worst4.7661E+027.5800E+02.0000E+002.3467E−098.4526E−011.3895E−064.5216E+03.0000E+00
Average4.6775E+027.5800E+02.0000E+008.6919E−102.8342E−011.3895E−063.2768E+03.0000E+00
Best4.6292E+027.5800E+02.0000E+002.8856E−116.4615E−061.3895E−062.0556E+03.0000E+00
F4Worst1.5629E+012.6031E+01.0000E+005.1912E−056.4387E−026.6044E+004.6851E−01.0000E+00
Average1.5049E+012.2908E+01.0000E+001.9482E−052.5853E−025.2396E+004.1694E−01.0000E+00
Best1.4336E+011.6661E+01.0000E+007.6197E−075.9136E−043.8748E+003.6652E−01.0000E+00
F5Worst4.8037E+025.3968E+024.8990E+014.8811E+014.8837E+014.8768E+014.6289E+014.6618E+01
Average4.1375E+025.3968E+024.8988E+014.8724E+012.3116E+014.8673E+014.5316E+014.5274E+01
Best3.5079E+025.3968E+024.8982E+014.8559E+013.4468E+004.8578E+014.3608E+014.4602E+01
F6Worst3.3000E+012.8869E−061.2250E+016.9530E+001.3451E+005.6785E+00.0000E+00.0000E+00
Average2.7000E+019.6425E−071.2151E+016.6732E+008.7289E−015.4443E+00.0000E+00.0000E+00
Best1.7000E+013.8777E−151.2088E+016.2597E+001.3280E−015.2101E+00.0000E+00.0000E+00
F7Worst7.2903E−024.3757E−044.8945E-048.3872E-045.1586E−026.1563E−035.2977E−039.7939E−06
Average5.8907E−023.6478E−042.0086E-043.9795E-042.6449E−026.1563E−034.6117E−035.5547E−06
Best4.9296E−022.5492E−044.3791E-051.7271E-047.4521E−036.1563E−034.2214E−034.3753E−07
F8Worst−2.0942E+04−1.1306E+04−8.3071E+03−6.4988E+03−3.6387E+03−1.0394E+04−2.0949E+04−1.1168E+04
Average−2.0943E+04−1.1682E+04−8.6683E+03−7.1780E+03−4.3875E+03−1.0394E+04−2.0949E+04−1.5465E+04
Best−2.0944E+04−1.1982E+04−8.8489E+03−7.7147E+03−5.4402E+03−1.0394E+04−2.0949E+04−2.0948E+04
F9Worst1.0429E+012.2338E−04.0000E+001.0001E+003.3536E+022.2083E+021.2885E−07.0000E+00
Average9.4712E+007.4499E−05.0000E+003.3336E−011.1184E+022.2083E+021.0416E−07.0000E+00
Best8.8922E+004.3207E−08.0000E+00.0000E+007.3769E−082.2083E+028.1546E−08.0000E+00
F10Worst3.5147E+002.7690E−038.8818E−161.9965E+011.1703E−012.2204E−147.8681E−058.8818E−16
Average3.3859E+009.8733E−048.8818E−161.9964E+013.9011E−022.2204E−147.4568E−058.8818E−16
Best3.1851E+002.6579E−068.8818E−161.9963E+019.3420E−072.2204E−146.7371E−058.8818E−16
F11Worst6.6468E−011.7682E−02.0000E+00.0000E+006.0801E−03.0000E+003.6575E−06.0000E+00
Average6.3190E−016.5841E−03.0000E+00.0000E+002.0267E−03.0000E+001.9180E−06.0000E+00
Best5.8027E−011.2798E−04.0000E+00.0000E+003.9468E−11.0000E+004.4038E−07.0000E+00
F12Worst3.6182E−014.3062E−182.1670E+007.2713E−015.5007E−021.0597E+013.8466E−094.4640E−05
Average1.2921E−012.8755E−181.3511E+005.2736E−012.1451E−021.0597E+012.5625E−093.8702E−05
Best9.3685E−031.4237E−209.2783E−013.4283E−013.1369E−031.0597E+011.3585E−092.7777E−05
F13Worst1.0963E+011.5961E−057.5999E−193.9651E+003.0838E−015.2188E+001.2402E−062.4314E−03
Average9.0997E+007.9422E−062.5333E−193.8584E+002.3810E−015.2188E+005.7049E−071.2380E−03
Best6.7712E+004.7000E−093.3219E−323.6863E+001.4956E−015.2188E+001.0300E−075.7995E−04
F14Worst9.9800E−012.9822E+005.9721E+002.9821E+001.2671E+011.2671E+019.9800E−019.9800E−01
Average9.9800E−012.6522E+004.2711E+001.6594E+001.2671E+011.2671E+019.9800E−019.9800E−01
Best9.9800E−011.9920E+002.9821E+009.9800E−011.2671E+011.2671E+019.9800E−019.9800E−01
F15Worst3.0749E−043.7326E−032.3100E−021.2273E−031.1656E−034.5817E−044.3803E−043.0749E−04
Average3.0749E−042.0324E−038.5860E−031.2256E−038.7099E−044.5817E−043.8605E−043.0749E−04
Best3.0749E−041.1058E−039.7933E−041.2239E−036.8563E−044.5817E−043.0749E−043.0749E−04
F16Worst−1.0316E+00−1.0306E+00−1.0173E+00−1.0316E+00−1.0300E+00−1.0316E+00−1.0316E+00−1.0316E+00
Average−1.0316E+00−1.0313E+00−1.0257E+00−1.0316E+00−1.0308E+00−1.0316E+00−1.0316E+00−1.0316E+00
Best−1.0316E+00−1.0316E+00−1.0316E+00−1.0316E+00−1.0315E+00−1.0316E+00−1.0316E+00−1.0316E+00
F17Worst3.9789E−013.9796E-014.8177E−013.9799E−013.9917E−013.9789E−013.9789E−013.9789E−01
Average3.9789E−013.9791E-014.5381E−013.9795E−013.9892E−013.9789E−013.9789E−013.9789E−01
Best3.9789E−013.9789E-013.9789E−013.9789E−013.9844E−013.9789E−013.9789E−013.9789E−01
F18Worst3.0000E+005.2787E+003.0087E+003.0001E+003.0520E+003.0000E+003.0000E+003.0000E+00
Average3.0000E+003.7606E+003.0051E+003.0000E+003.0413E+003.0000E+003.0000E+003.0000E+00
Best3.0000E+003.0000E+003.0002E+003.0000E+003.0302E+003.0000E+003.0000E+003.0000E+00
F19Worst−3.8628E+00−3.8446E+00−3.6018E+00−3.8548E+00−3.8559E+00−3.8628E+00−3.8628E+00−3.8628E+00
Average−3.8628E+00−3.8525E+00−3.7550E+00−3.8549E+00−3.8581E+00−3.8628E+00−3.8628E+00−3.8628E+00
Best−3.8628E+00−3.8621E+00−3.8621E+00−3.8549E+00−3.8596E+00−3.8628E+00−3.8628E+00−3.8628E+00
F20Worst−3.3220E+00−2.9579E+00−1.4363E+00−3.0155E+00−2.9366E+00−3.2016E+00−3.3220E+00−3.3220E+00
Average−3.3220E+00−3.1888E+00−2.0529E+00−3.0155E+00−3.0816E+00−3.2016E+00−3.3220E+00−3.3220E+00
Best−3.3220E+00−3.3144E+00−2.4916E+00−3.0156E+00−3.1818E+00−3.2016E+00−3.3220E+00−3.3220E+00
F21Worst−1.0153E+01−9.6985E+00−5.0552E+00-4.9730E-01−4.8863E+00−2.6476E+00−1.0153E+01−1.0153E+01
Average−1.0153E+01−9.9224E+00−5.0552E+00−6.9167E+00−6.4721E+00−6.3110E+00−1.0153E+01−1.0153E+01
Best−1.0153E+01−1.0153E+01−5.0552E+00−1.0133E+01−7.9217E+00−9.9745E+00−1.0153E+01−1.0153E+01
F22Worst−1.0403E+01−1.0403E+01−5.0877E+00−5.2393E-01−6.5016E+00−1.0106E+01−1.0403E+01−1.0403E+01
Average−1.0403E+01−1.0403E+01−5.0877E+00−5.3207E+00−8.1081E+00−1.0111E+01−1.0403E+01−1.0403E+01
Best−1.0403E+01−1.0403E+01−5.0877E+00−1.0351E+01−9.8519E+00−1.0116E+01−1.0403E+01−1.0403E+01
F23Worst−1.0536E+01−8.8018E+00−5.1285E+00−1.0470E+01−7.2908E+00−3.8107E+00−1.0536E+01−1.0536E+01
Average−1.0536E+01−9.7699E+00−5.1285E+00−1.0503E+01−8.9942E+00−7.1265E+00−1.0536E+01−1.0536E+01
Best−1.0536E+01−1.0535E+01−5.1285E+00−1.0521E+01−1.0021E+01−1.0442E+01−1.0536E+01−1.0536E+01

The results of the comparison between methods with 23 CEC benchmark functions.

Figure 2 shows the iteration curves of HKSOPSO-CP and other algorithms participating in the comparison. In most cases, HKSOPSO-CP exhibits a strong, fast convergence ability, with a greater capacity to jump out of local optima, and its convergence effect is stabler than that of other methods. Therefore, HKSOPSO-CP offers a strong global search capability.

FIGURE 2

Another measure of algorithm performance is CPU running time. Figure 3 shows the CPU running time consumed by the various algorithms entered into the comparison. It can be seen that across all 23 of the test functions, the amount of time consumed by HKSOPSO-CP is relatively small, and this method is associated with the shortest running time in the case of 14 tests, performing notably better than BWOA in particular. Consequently, HKSOPSO-CP can be judged to provide better performance than KSO and other algorithms, as well as offering an improved degree of stability.

FIGURE 3

4.2 Comparison of performance on the EED problem

The four test cases for the EED problem are: 1) a 6-unit system (; 2) a 10-unit system ( MW); 3) a 40-unit system ( MW); and 4) a 110-unit system ( MW).

4.2.1 Case 1 comparison

In case 1, an optimization algorithm such as HKSOPSO-CP is applied to a 6-unit system with a load demand of 2.834 , along with other optimization algorithms handling six generators, considering the valve point effect.

Table 5 displays the results of the best solution for case 1 with a range of values for weight factor w between 0 and 1 and a step size of .1. The constraints are the generating constraint V and the transmission losses constraint . As shown in this table, when the only objective function is to minimize fuel costs, HKSOPSO-CP achieves an optimal value of 605.8791($/h). When only emissions are minimized, HKSOPSO-CP achieves an optimal value of .194178 (ton/h).

TABLE 5

w.0.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.91.0
P1.4108.3626.3213.2853.2537.2256.2004.1777.1570.1381.1207
P2.4635.4369.4130.3916.3723.3547.3387.3241.3106.2982.2866
P3.5442.5496.5549.5600.5647.5688.5725.5756.5782.5801.5815
P4.3902.4776.5548.6242.6872.7454.7997.8510.9000.9472.9934
P5.5443.5470.5488.5495.5492.5479.5454.5417.5369.5310.5237
P6.5153.4911.4694.4500.4324.4164.4017.3882.3757.3641.3532
V(MW)2.15E−161.77E−164.16E−172.19E−169.71E−177.63E−175.90E−171.11E−162.19E−162.08E−161.46E−16
PL(MW).0344.0308.0283.0266.0255.0248.0244.0243.0244.0247.0251
Fuel cost ($/h)645.9986634.7793626.4476620.2255615.5797612.1370609.6320607.8735606.7232606.0816605.8791
Emissions (ton/h).1942.1947.1962.1983.2008.2036.2066.2099.2133.2169.2207

Best solution values for a six-unit system with different weights.

In case 1, the HKSOPSO-CP algorithm is applied to obtain the common optimal values of fuel cost C and pollution emissions E. Figure 4 depicts the Pareto optimal values and also plots the optimal solutions provided by other algorithms. Taking the graphs and tables together, it is clear that HKSOPSO-CP achieves a better cost and overall a better compromise solution compared to NPGA (), MOPSO (), and NSGA (). Other algorithms, namely MOEA/D (), SPEA (), MBFA (), FSBF (), and NGPSO (), also successfully implemented a cost-matching and compromise solution.

FIGURE 4

Table 6 presents the results of metaheuristic algorithms in terms of minimization of costs and emissions in case 1. In the case of cost minimization, HKSOPSO-CP and SOA () achieve the same optimal result of 605.8791 ($/h), which outperforms all the other algorithms, particularly MOEA/D (), SPEA (), MBFA (), FSBF (), and NGPSO (), which all achieve comparable compromise solutions. Compared with the second-best result, namely that of KSO, HKSOPSO-CP reduces fuel costs by .017 ($/h). In the case of minimization of emissions, HKSOPSO-CP achieves the optimal result among all the algorithms. These results show that HKSOPSO-CP produces a solution equivalent to or better solution than that provided by existing technology. Therefore, the HKSOPSO-CP algorithm can be considered to exhibit excellent performance in solving low-dimensionality problems.

TABLE 6

AlgorithmBest fuel cost (w = 1.0)Best pollution emissions (w = .0)
C($/h)E(ton/h)V(pu)C($/h)E(ton/h)V(pu)
MBFA606.1700.2174.02551.89E−05643.84.194201.03452.51E−05
MSA605.9984.2207.02563.96E−05646.20.194179.03532.71E−05
PSOGSA605.9984.2207.02566.10E−05646.21.194179.03532.92E−05
MOPSO607.8400.2192.02557.38E−03642.90.194230.03463.82E−05
PSO(wsm)607.8400.2198.02577.45E−03645.23.194230.03524.13E−03
MOPSO-2607.7900.2193.02577.56E−03644.74.194185.03504.11E−03
GA607.7814.2199.02567.58E−03645.22.194180.03524.12E−03
NSGA607.9800.2191.02658.07E−03638.98.194678.03272.96E−03
HHO606.5292.2234.02471.70E−16631.05.195728.02811.59E−16
NPGA608.0593.2207.02518.59E−03644.23.194270.03554.06E−03
SPEA607.8600.2176.02587.43E−03644.77.194279.03474.66E−03
DE608.0658.2193.02558.72E−03645.09.194181.03524.80E−03
GSA605.9984.2207.02561.37E−04646.21.194179.03536.98E−05
OGSA605.9982.2207.02565.69E−05646.21.194179.03532.92E−05
SMODE619.0700.2034.02162.49E−03643.01.194201.03444.50E−03
BBMOPSO605.9817.2202.02561.24E−04646.48.194179.03542.92E−05
MOEA/D619.5300.2017.02272.39E−03644.98.194187.03485.02E−03
MOLBSA606.0081.2205.02583.74E−07645.02.194200.03472.32E−04
SOA605.8791.2208.03441.18E−16646.1517.194179.03451.11E−16
TSA605.8799.2209.02511.21E−16646.1772.194180.03442.08E−17
SMA606.0020.2206.02565.06E−09642.54.194340.03463.08E−08
ISMA605.9980.2207.02568.59E−11646.66.194180.03542.74E−10
KSO605.8960.2211.02585.18E−04646.60.194178.03532.09E−03
HKSOPSO-CP605.8791.2207.02511.46E−16645.99.194178.03442.15E−16

Case 1 comparison between different algorithms optimizing for fuel cost or emission rate.

4.2.2 Case 2 comparison

In case 2, an optimization algorithm such as HKSOPSO-CP is applied in the same way to a ten-unit system with a load demand of 2,000 MW, and its results are compared to those of other optimization algorithms handling ten generators, considering the valve point effect.

Table 7 displays the results of the best solution for case 2 with a range of values for weight factor w between 0 and 1 and a step size of .1. As shown in this table, when the only objective function is to minimize fuel costs, HKSOPSO-CP achieves an optimal value of 11,497 ($/h). When only emissions are minimized, HKSOPSO-CP achieves an optimal value of 3,932 (ton/h).

TABLE 7

w.0.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.91
P155.0055.0055.0055.0055.0055.0055.0055.0055.0055.0055.00
P280.0080.0080.0080.0080.0080.0080.0080.0080.0080.0080.00
P381.1381.1181.0881.3782.5383.8985.9387.8489.5996.17106.75
P481.3681.1680.9180.9381.7982.7784.3485.6086.5591.36100.89
P5160.00160.00160.00160.00160.00152.89133.86116.1799.7989.7781.36
P6240.00240.00240.00231.68201.73174.95152.34130.00108.6994.6983.00
P7294.49292.61290.46289.79293.37297.05300.00300.00300.00300.00300.00
P8297.27297.00296.66298.19304.64311.82317.89325.17330.28340.00340.00
P9396.77397.81399.02402.45411.40421.72436.20450.76466.77470.00470.00
P10395.58396.95398.56402.48412.07423.23438.83454.97470.00470.00470.00
V(MW)2.71E−122.79E−122.79E−122.84E−123.21E−123.58E−124.09E−124.80E−124.57−E35.01E−039.94E−03
PL(MW)81.6081.6481.6881.8982.5383.3284.3885.5186.6886.9987.03
Fuel cost ($/h)1,16,4121,16,4011,16,3881,16,0501,14,9951,14,0111,12,9981,12,2431,11,7271,11,5471,11,497
Emissions (ton/h)3,9323,9323,9323,9443,9914,0604,1624,2794,4074,4874,572

Best solution values for a 10-unit system with different weights.

In case 2, the HKSOPSO-CP algorithm is applied to obtain the common optimal values of fuel cost C and pollution emissions E. Figure 5 depicts the Pareto optimal values and also plots the optimal solutions provided by other algorithms. Taking the graphs and tables together, it is clear that HKSOPSO-CP achieves a better cost and overall a better compromise solution compared to FPA (), NSGA (), and SPEA2 (). Other algorithms, namely BSA (), OGHS (), NGPSO (), SMA (), and ISMA (), also successfully implemented a cost-matching and compromise solution.

FIGURE 5

Table 8 and Table 9 present the results of metaheuristic algorithms in terms of minimization of costs and emissions in case 2. In the case of cost minimization, HKSOPSO-CP achieves the best optimal result of 111496.97 ($/h) compared with other algorithms, particularly SOA (), TSA (), OGHS (), SMA (), and ISMA (), which all achieve comparable compromise solutions. Compared with the second-best result, namely that of KSO, HKSOPSO-CP reduces fuel costs by .3 ($/h). In the case of minimization of emissions, HKSOPSO-CP achieves the optimal result among all the algorithms. This shows that HKSOPSO-CP generates comparable or better quality solutions as compared to existing techniques in case 2.

TABLE 8

AlgorithmOGHSNGPSOSOATSASMAISMAKSOHKSOPSO-CP
P155.0055.0055.0055.0055.0055.0055.0055.00
P280.0080.0080.0080.0080.0080.0080.0080.00
P3106.99106.94107.58108.19106.84106.87106.84106.75
P4100.54100.58100.92101.60100.88100.54100.92100.89
P581.4581.5081.5880.2081.5081.6181.3281.36
P683.0783.0281.9682.1282.8283.0282.9583.00
P7300.00300.00300.00300.00300.00300.00300.00300.00
P8340.00340.00340.00340.00340.00340.00340.00340.00
P9470.00470.00470.00470.00470.00470.00470.00470.00
P10470.00470.00470.00469.94470.00470.00470.00470.00
V(MV).00.00.00.00.00.00.01.00
PL(MW)87.0487.0487.0487.0487.0487.0487.0487.03
Fuel cost ($/h)111497.61111497.63111497.65111498.68111497.65111497.63111497.27111496.97
Emissions (ton/h)4572.274572.204576.974582.934573.064571.684573.244572.67

Case 2 comparison between different algorithms optimizing for fuel cost.

TABLE 9

AlgorithmOGHSNGPSOSOATSASMAISMAKSOHKSOPSO-CP
P155.0055.0055.0055.0055.0055.0055.0055.00
P280.0080.0080.0080.0080.0079.9980.0080.00
P381.1181.1381.1480.3980.8081.2581.1381.13
P481.4181.3681.4380.7281.2281.4281.3681.36
P5160.00160 .0000160.00160.00160.00160.00160 .0000160.00
P6240.00240.00240.00240.00240.00240.00240.00240.00
P7294.51294.49294.26294.50295.34294.49294.49294.49
P8297.26297.27297.46299.34297.78296.94297.27297.27
P9396.74396.77396.93395.89395.07397.04396.77396.77
P10395.57395.58395.37395.76396.40395.47395.58395.58
V(MV).00.00.00.00.00.00.002.71E−12
PL(MV)81.5981.6081.5981.6181.6081.5981.6081.60
Fuel cost ($/h)116412.65116412.44116412.13116413.24116416.26116412.21116412.44116412.44
Emissions (ton/h)3932.243932.243932.243932.333932.283932.243932.243932.24

Case 2 comparison between different algorithms optimizing for emission rate.

4.2.3 Case 3 comparison

A better illustration of the effectiveness of the HKSOPSO-CP algorithm is to implement it for case 3. Case 3 can be used to study the applicability of the proposed methods in the case of a 40-unit system with a load demand of 10,500 MW.

Table 10 displays the results of the best solution for case 3 with a range of values for weight factor w between 0 and 1 and a step size of .1. As shown in this table, when the only objective function is to minimize fuel costs, HKSOPSO-CP achieves an optimal value of 176682 (ton/h). When only emissions are minimized, HKSOPSO-CP achieves an optimal value of 121374($/h).

TABLE 10

w.0.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.91.0
P1114.00114.00114.00114.00114.00114.00110.80110.88112.08111.58110.91
P2114.00114.00114.00114.00114.00114.00110.80111.15112.46110.80111.40
P3120.00120.00120.00120.00120.00120.00120.0097.4097.7397.4397.44
P4169.37176.51179.73179.73179.73179.73179.73179.73179.73179.73179.73
P597.0097.0097.0097.0097.0097.0087.8095.8193.9888.1588.19
P6124.26128.13134.06140.00140.00140.00140.00140.00140.00140.00140.00
P7299.71300.00300.00300.00300.00300.00259.60260.03293.80259.63259.62
P8297.91299.08300.00300.00300.00284.60284.60284.60285.29284.75284.60
P9297.26298.24300.00300.00300.00284.60284.60286.28285.12286.33284.60
P10130.00130.00130.00130.00130.00130.00130.00130.00130.00130.00130.00
P11298.41305.51314.10318.40318.40318.40243.60242.46243.47168.78168.80
P12298.03304.96313.51318.40318.40318.40243.60243.55168.80243.32168.80
P13433.56433.61438.48394.28394.28394.28394.28304.52214.76214.76214.76
P14421.73413.47394.28394.28394.28394.28394.28394.26304.52304.52394.28
P15422.78415.44394.28394.28394.28394.28394.28393.85304.52394.07394.28
P16422.78415.44394.28394.28394.28394.28394.28394.25304.52304.52304.52
P17439.41448.40467.01485.35489.28489.28489.28489.26489.28489.28489.28
P18439.40448.42467.04485.38489.28489.28489.28489.27489.28489.28489.28
P19439.41437.95434.81427.83423.98421.52510.09421.52511.28511.28511.28
P20439.41437.95434.81427.83423.98421.52510.09421.52511.28511.28511.28
P21439.45437.88435.89433.86435.20433.52433.52520.89523.28523.28523.28
P22439.45437.88435.89433.86435.20433.52433.52519.04523.28523.28523.28
P23439.77438.34436.53434.67436.41433.52433.52519.54523.28523.28523.28
P24439.77438.34436.53434.67436.41433.52433.52520.49523.28523.28523.28
P25440.11438.26435.83433.52433.75433.52433.52433.52523.27523.28523.28
P26440.11438.26435.83433.52433.75433.52433.52522.31523.27523.28523.28
P2728.9921.0715.7412.6111.0510.0010.0010.0010.0010.0010.00
P2828.9921.0715.7412.6111.0510.0010.0010.0010.0010.0010.00
P2928.9921.0715.7412.6111.0510.0010.0010.0010.0010.0010.00
P3097.0097.0097.0097.0097.0097.0087.8089.1388.8188.5287.85
P31172.33174.89179.86189.41190.00190.00190.00162.90190.00190.00190.00
P32172.33174.89179.86189.41190.00159.76190.00188.58188.99190.00190.00
P33172.33174.89179.86189.41190.00190.00190.00190.00190.00190.00190.00
P34200.00200.00200.00200.00200.00200.00200.00184.60164.80168.59165.27
P35200.00200.00200.00200.00200.00200.00200.00197.00197.25167.21165.91
P36200.00200.00200.00200.00200.00200.00200.00195.34199.53196.70166.97
P37100.84103.36107.83110.00110.00110.00110.00110.00109.11109.70110.00
P38100.84103.36107.83110.00110.00110.00110.00108.07109.4089.42110.00
P39100.84103.36107.83110.00110.00110.00110.0096.74109.28109.42110.00
P40439.41437.95434.81427.83423.98502.68510.09421.52511.28511.28511.28
Fuel cost129955129005127421125888125671125324124255123317121576121538121374
Emissions176682177765183489193425195440201876228740273383350724351084356390

Best solution values for a 40-unit system with different weights.

In case 3, the HKSOPSO-CP algorithm is applied to obtain the common optimal values of fuel cost C and pollution emissions E. Figure 6 depicts the Pareto optimal values and also plots the optimal solutions provided by other algorithms. Taking the graphs and tables together, it is clear that HKSOPSO-CP achieves a better cost and overall a better compromise solution compared to NSGA (), GSA (), and NSPSO (). Other algorithms, namely QOTLBO (), LMPSO (), SMA (), and ISMA (), also successfully implemented a cost-matching and compromise solution.

FIGURE 6

Table 11 presents the results of metaheuristic algorithms in terms of minimization of costs and emissions in case 3. In the case of cost minimization, HKSOPSO-CP achieves the best optimal result of 1,21,374 ($/h) in comparison to all the other algorithms, particularly LMPSO (), SOA (), TSA (), SMA (), and ISMA (), which all achieve comparable compromise solutions. Compared with the second-best result, namely that of KSO, HKSOPSO-CP reduces fuel costs by 2.0 ($/h). In the case of minimization of emissions, HKSOPSO-CP achieves the optimal result among all the algorithms. The results show that HKSOPSO-CP produces a solution that is equivalent to or better than those provided by existing technology in case 3.

TABLE 11

AlgorithmEmission minimization (w = 0)Fuel cost minimization (w = 1)
Fuel cost ($/h)Emissions (ton/h)Fuel cost ($/h)Emissions ($/h)
IABC129995176682121415356422
IABC-LS129995176682121413359901
HPSOGSA129997176684121413360228
MBFA129995176682121416356424
PSOGSA129987176678121461358155
MODE129956176683121837374791
DE-HS129994176682121415356433
MA0-PSO129995176682121413359902
SOA130312179119124704361448
TSA131171189754.8124854382458
ISMA129949176683121547359501
SMA129943176687121622362707
KSO129955176682121376356336
HKSOPSO-CP129955176682121374356390

Case 3 comparison between different algorithms optimizing for fuel cost or emission rate.

4.2.4 Case 4 comparison

In case 4, HKSOPSO-CP is applied, along with several other optimization algorithms for comparison, to a 110-unit system with a load demand of 15,000 MW, with a valve point effect and no transmission loss.

Table 12 presents the results of metaheuristic algorithms in terms of minimization of costs and emissions in case 4. In the case of cost minimization, HKSOPSO-CP achieves the best result of 198526.78 ($/h) when compared with all other algorithms, particularly SSA and TSA, which achieve comparable solutions on the benchmark function test. Compared with the second-best result, namely that of ISMA (), HKSOPSO-CP reduces fuel costs by 39.12 ($/h). These results show that HKSOPSO-CP obtains solutions that are comparable to or better than those provided by existing techniques in case 4. Therefore, the HKSOPSO-CP algorithm can be considered to provide improved performance in solving high-dimensionality EED problems.

TABLE 12

AlgorithmSSATSASMAISMAPSOKSOHKSOPSO-CP
P12.6225654.20862.62262.40055.42922.79312.7600
P26.3195522.40002.40002.40225.98452.43962.4190
P32.5807716.25492.43475.05565.26572.45852.4378
P47.9802623.65302.99262.62905.21512.49992.4629
P52.7421436.84522.40005.14864.98332.52952.5482
P66.971314.00004.00004.01568.78324.00004.0000
P78.4219124.00004.00004.000015.71244.00004.0000
P85.6716686.65294.00004.000012.24624.00004.0000
P917.125584.25964.00004.000012.66354.00004.0000
P1075.0874817.169231.200631.080246.452559.590865.7108
P1173.6428771.980974.796437.187363.915157.340962.4228
P1243.1668649.878062.758968.821954.172063.132338.2387
P1339.8030956.416454.142836.442123.138868.511756.6228
P1453.3306540.800925.071425.000069.908626.341826.0582
P1585.6522125.000025.006025.132763.169934.250625.1015
P1661.2140626.760925.004725.105172.726726.655425.0842
P17159.6986154.0009155.0000154.9465103.6746153.2279154.0870
P1861.77792154.5085154.9952154.9773147.5522152.1607155.0000
P1998.7628760.1401154.9864155.0000134.0495148.8504153.8775
P20164.0439155.0000102.5721154.9998135.3134148.9845152.7656
P21179.669368.900068.902068.900884.599069.385069.1493
P22204.238369.605568.901368.927373.959970.178769.4531
P23118.241274.179168.900068.906168.900069.740069.2334
P24367.2122349.4898349.9845349.9944332.0594344.6627348.9680
P25170.9869394.8134399.9994399.9994372.7378399.1524400.0000
P26375.7379400.0000400.0000399.9996380.5251395.7907398.8397
P27506.9935460.2447499.9935499.9994377.1125467.5401476.0545
P28560.0383500.0000499.7582500.0000465.3444470.0665458.6294
P29154.2269200.0000200.0000200.0000141.5889189.1772198.9552
P3081.2486925.332899.999865.242076.407599.2711100.0000
P3128.4658413.706710.002010.000021.352010.692310.2708
P324.175625.000012.34449.845316.300218.040619.4716
P3325.859420.837965.562043.531332.814068.932674.2058
P34182.6466240.3992249.9988247.1876224.3301241.9766247.1635
P35264.1791360.0000359.9986359.9998313.3566346.9819348.0956
P36239.4743400.0000400.0000399.9987336.1917376.1370388.2775
P3714.2577710.000037.675829.296630.301338.124738.1490
P3854.3503567.793956.836422.789646.725266.400766.4558
P3945.8020549.313969.801356.988970.772784.853697.5929
P4060.6809135.2239120.000073.833891.516196.3301117.5323
P4189.27466142.8969136.6560152.8516127.1847136.5202170.6824
P42228.9135206.5694199.7630216.2521171.7525196.9808203.9003
P43317.3063440.0000440.0000440.0000439.5246440.0000439.4754
P44627.9953560.0000560.0000559.8904539.2588543.0548559.2631
P45605.9089650.7611659.9800659.9003659.6707658.2462657.8982
P46326.3605643.2216627.7291665.0369699.1032589.6224618.4499
P4713.130056.38695.40005.40058.89696.03435.5034
P4810.2109711.53865.40005.401415.22555.43305.6497
P4919.877189.25988.40008.402416.47608.53278.5030
P5019.6404515.43218.40378.400017.37289.23838.4494
P5143.548849.147829.36819.143920.70179.12788.6124
P5228.2761317.017112.000312.000016.103412.000012.0000
P5327.0580912.000012.000012.001618.087312.000012.0000
P5455.3471115.734612.000012.000012.000012.000012.0000
P5538.6333713.763512.000012.025912.000012.000012.0000
P5673.3785267.832650.611057.865266.133460.241526.7997
P5777.6165638.508648.522631.457890.155975.205254.5181
P5853.2358147.123178.035535.731066.279653.912342.5551
P5952.8795854.946443.813968.235755.144373.476050.0174
P60127.23649.960445.000045.000069.976945.085045.5746
P6181.5042648.053545.001845.681246.722545.851345.9457
P6285.5641552.585645.000045.000080.235746.330945.6714
P6389.97434175.9284172.4597171.6163124.0940164.2997176.8378
P64119.4536139.5947183.8930184.9205131.7357177.2498167.4040
P65120.0246167.5547169.6174140.2055102.7506171.0727150.9309
P66125.3839172.3518183.8618178.973495.3875165.8698166.7102
P67148.030575.256370.000070.000091.546871.078670.4225
P68137.27970.000070.000070.000371.149470.965570.1265
P69125.503972.272170.038670.000070.001470.938070.2708
P70215.2831360.0000341.4428360.0000357.0100306.6718321.9450
P71410.9247356.0329400.0000399.9998399.7669394.9507400.0000
P72291.4381400.0000400.0000399.9935400.0000382.6996397.9505
P73253.5676189.893468.5842123.9319205.3575200.5920188.3936
P74246.3212154.8527152.5601218.2584207.1537187.0232206.5440
P7592.9199488.595690.000088.594966.392390.000088.6105
P7627.1402818.231450.000049.924618.655950.000049.4185
P77360.4447444.2485217.3226213.4715398.0960215.4140235.5136
P78338.8554521.2429475.6029409.1935470.3499365.0429292.1456
P79109.2578148.8751164.0484118.1070131.3772152.7913175.0241
P8051.4638793.485745.085559.6734120.000097.2393106.4033
P8112.6558610.796210.000010.000127.020510.524410.2743
P8229.1422218.950824.342414.186228.827634.570021.2688
P8362.8536320.272535.595320.086665.470856.822262.1335
P84180.5718193.724993.7117190.3161108.9955166.2470170.7884
P85275.5625325.0000317.0912303.3981252.2418266.8946318.8481
P86442.9358440.0000439.8854439.2509322.0197374.6612430.4750
P8715.6321218.569934.795415.608424.293732.465629.2856
P8831.4310737.109021.690338.741041.207946.814337.4321
P8984.4691559.778095.825387.138185.422138.972668.7526
P90167.38874.553398.8315185.9027155.8520128.0841112.2484
P9186.8291252.273061.091691.403792.1016116.960273.9098
P9280.7575842.713173.363358.797980.566185.020693.1928
P93298.0457440.0000439.9993440.0000408.8525434.8370437.1723
P94353.1111490.0781500.0000499.9633484.6226490.0770491.2568
P95585.3382600.0000599.9999599.7575599.8339600.0000598.2580
P96406.2559496.6494510.9935485.6981565.4470530.2636426.3165
P9712.57416.89923.62893.602210.67643.64373.7794
P986.3620065.62723.60023.604610.96363.70863.8711
P995.1045514.40004.40004.684610.55874.41294.5395
P1009.166144.40004.40024.451712.45634.42094.6211
P10159.3830513.169611.382610.795726.335315.002810.0499
P10232.913810.303812.726720.263432.502014.712310.6984
P10340.3980630.176020.000220.000220.000024.498520.1270
P10454.4542621.047420.000020.014920.000020.392120.4855
P10582.6546941.308540.000040.004842.480340.000040.0000
P106141.218940.000040.000040.000040.008140.000040.0000
P107139.962450.000050.000250.000550.000050.000050.0000
P108156.225430.000030.000030.000043.598230.000030.0000
P109245.336740.000040.000440.000058.570740.000040.0000
P11020.0018322.325820.000020.001123.135520.000020.0000
V(MV).00005.22E−021.25E−052.33E−061.42E−01.0000.0000
Fuel cost ($/h)227057.8200832.10198618.51198565.94204974.80199147.53198526.78

Case 4 comparison between different algorithms optimizing for fuel cost.

Overall, SOA offers nearly the same performance as HKSOPSO when dealing with low-dimensionality problems, but it is less effective when dealing with high-dimensionality problems. HKSOPSO-CP provides the optimal results in solving problems of different dimensionalities, which indicates that this method offers better performance and versatility than other algorithms; for this reason, it can be applied to more fields, such as hybrid motion models (), structured sparsity optimization (), recommender systems (; ), image-to-image translation (), human activity recognition (), dynamic module detection (), location-based services (; ), smart contract vulnerability detection (), power flow optimization (), image denoising (), and medical data processing ().

5 Conclusion

A novel hybrid approach, in the form of the HKSOPSO-CP optimization algorithm, is presented in this paper and is successfully applied to solve the EED problem in power systems, accounting for the valve point effect. The HKSOPSO-CP method is applied in four real-world cases, involving 6, 10, 40, and 110 generating units with various power system constraints. It has been demonstrated that the proposed algorithm is capable of providing better solutions than conventional KSO and other algorithms used as points of comparison. The results also show that the proposed algorithm is robust and flexible. In the future, this method can be used to solve other complex optimization problems. Moreover, different kernel functions could be used to solve some optimization problems to achieve better results; however, to enable this, it will be necessary to focus on computational tricks for kernel mapping. Meanwhile, research will focus on applying the HKSOPSO-CP approach and its variants to other real-world problems, such as medical data classification and complex multi-objective problems in engineering.

Statements

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Author contributions

RD: Writing—original draft, writing—review and editing, software, visualization, investigation. LM: Writing—Original draft, writing—Review and editing, software, visualization, investigation. HC: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing—Review and editing, funding acquisition, supervision. AH: Writing—original draft, writing—review and editing, software, visualization, investigation. GL: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing—review and editing, funding acquisition, supervision.

Funding

This research was supported by the Science and Technology Development Project of Jilin Province, China (YDZJ202201ZYTS555), the Science and Technology Research Project of the Education Department of Jilin Province, China (JJKH20220244KJ), and the Zhejiang Provincial Philosophy and Social Sciences Planning Project (23NDJC393YBM).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

  • 1

    AbdelazizA.AliE.Abd-ElazimS. (2016). Combined economic and emission dispatch solution using flower pollination algorithm. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.80, 264–274. 10.1016/j.ijepes.2015.11.093

  • 2

    AbdelazizA.AliE.Abd-ElazimS. (2016). Implementation of flower pollination algorithm for solving economic load dispatch and combined economic emission dispatch problems in power systems. Energy101, 506–518. 10.1016/j.energy.2016.02.041

  • 3

    AbidoM. A. (2009). “Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms for electric power dispatch problem,” in Computational intelligence (Springer), 47–82.

  • 4

    AbualigahL.ElazizM. A.SumariP.GeemZ. W.GandomiA. H. (2021). Reptile search algorithm (RSA): A nature-inspired meta-heuristic optimizer. Expert Syst. Appl.191, 116158. 10.1016/j.eswa.2021.116158

  • 5

    AhmadianfarI.HeidariA. A.GandomiA. H.ChuX.ChenH. (2021). RUN beyond the metaphor: An efficient optimization algorithm based on Runge Kutta method. Expert Syst. Appl.181, 115079. 10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115079

  • 6

    AhmadianfarI.HeidariA. A.NoshadianS.ChenH.GandomiA. H. (2022). INFO: An efficient optimization algorithm based on weighted mean of vectors. Expert Syst. Appl.195, 116516. 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116516

  • 7

    BasuM.BasuM. (2011). Economic environmental dispatch using multi-objective differential evolution. Appl. Soft Comput.11 (2), 28452845–28532853. 10.1016/j.asoc.2010.11.014

  • 8

    CaoB.GuY.LvZ.YangS.ZhaoJ.LiY. (2020). RFID reader anticollision based on distributed parallel particle swarm optimization. IEEE Internet Things J.8 (5), 3099–3107. 10.1109/jiot.2020.3033473

  • 9

    CaoB.YanY.WangY.LiuX.LinJ. C. W.SangaiahA. K.et al (2022). A multiobjective intelligent decision-making method for multistage placement of PMU in power grid enterprises. IEEE Trans. Industrial Inf., 1–9. 10.1109/tii.2022.3215787

  • 10

    CaoX.WangJ.ZengB. (2022). A study on the strong duality of second-order conic relaxation of AC optimal power flow in radial networks. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.37 (1), 443–455. 10.1109/tpwrs.2021.3087639

  • 11

    ChenH.-L.WangG.CaiZ. N.LiuW. B.WangS. J. (2016). An efficient hybrid kernel extreme learning machine approach for early diagnosis of Parkinson׳s disease. Neurocomputing184, 131–144. 10.1016/j.neucom.2015.07.138

  • 12

    ChenY. (2022). Research on collaborative innovation of key common technologies in new energy vehicle industry based on digital twin technology. Energy Rep.8, 15399–15407. 10.1016/j.egyr.2022.11.120

  • 13

    CimaJ. A.MathesonA. L.RossW. T. (2006). The Cauchy transform. American Mathematical Soc.

  • 14

    de Athayde Costa e SilvaM.KleinC. E.MarianiV. C.dos Santos CoelhoL. (2013). Multiobjective scatter search approach with new combination scheme applied to solve environmental/economic dispatch problem. Energy53, 14–21. 10.1016/j.energy.2013.02.045

  • 15

    DengW.NiH.LiuY.ChenH.ZhaoH. (2022). An adaptive differential evolution algorithm based on belief space and generalized opposition-based learning for resource allocation. Appl. Soft Comput.127, 109419. 10.1016/j.asoc.2022.109419

  • 16

    DengW.XuJ.GaoX. Z.ZhaoH. (2022). An enhanced MSIQDE algorithm with novel multiple strategies for global optimization problems. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, Cybern. Syst.52 (3), 1578–1587. 10.1109/tsmc.2020.3030792

  • 17

    DengW.XuJ.ZhaoH.SongY. (2020). A novel gate resource allocation method using improved PSO-based QEA. IEEE Trans. Intelligent Transp. Syst.23, 1737–1745. 10.1109/TITS.2020.3025796

  • 18

    DengW.ZhangL.ZhouX.ZhouY.SunY.ZhuW.et al (2022). Multi-strategy particle swarm and ant colony hybrid optimization for airport taxiway planning problem. Inf. Sci.612, 576–593. 10.1016/j.ins.2022.08.115

  • 19

    DengW.ZhangX.ZhouY.LiuY.ZhouX.ChenH.et al (2022). An enhanced fast non-dominated solution sorting genetic algorithm for multi-objective problems. Inf. Sci.585, 441–453. 10.1016/j.ins.2021.11.052

  • 20

    DhimanG.KumarV. (2018). Seagull optimization algorithm: Theory and its applications for large-scale industrial engineering problems. Knowledge-Based Syst.165, 169–196. 10.1016/j.knosys.2018.11.024

  • 21

    DongR.ChenH.HeidariA. A.TurabiehH.MafarjaM.WangS. (2021). Boosted kernel search: Framework, analysis and case studies on the economic emission dispatch problem. Knowledge-Based Syst.233, 107529. 10.1016/j.knosys.2021.107529

  • 22

    DongR.WangS. (2020). New optimization algorithm inspired by kernel tricks for the economic emission dispatch problem with valve point. IEEE Access8, 16584–16594. 10.1109/access.2020.2965725

  • 23

    El-KeibA. A.DingH. (1994). Environmentally constrained economic dispatch using linear programming. Electr. Power Syst. Res. - ELEC POWER SYST RES29, 155–159. 10.1016/0378-7796(94)90010-8

  • 24

    GaoD.WangG.-G.PedryczW. (2020). Solving fuzzy job-shop scheduling problem using DE algorithm improved by a selection mechanism. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst.28 (12), 3265–3275. 10.1109/tfuzz.2020.3003506

  • 25

    GeL.DuT.LiY.YanJ.RafiqM. U. (2022). Virtual collection for distributed photovoltaic data: Challenges, methodologies, and applications. Energies15 (23), 8783. 10.3390/en15238783

  • 26

    GeL.LiY.LiY.YanJ.SunY. (2022). Smart distribution network situation awareness for high-quality operation and maintenance: A brief Review. Energies15 (3), 828. 10.3390/en15030828

  • 27

    GoudarziA.LiY.XiangJ. (2019). A hybrid non-linear time-varying double-weighted particle swarm optimization for solving non-convex combined environmental economic dispatch problem. Appl. Soft Comput.86, 105894. 10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105894

  • 28

    GuoK.ChenT.RenS.LiN.HuM.KangJ. (2022). Federated learning empowered real-time medical data processing method for smart healthcare. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinforma., 1–12. 10.1109/tcbb.2022.3185395

  • 29

    HanX.HanY.ChenQ.LiJ.SangH.LiuY.et al (2021). Distributed flow shop scheduling with sequence-dependent setup times using an improved iterated greedy algorithm. Complex Syst. Model. Simul.1 (3), 198–217. 10.23919/csms.2021.0018

  • 30

    HassanM. H.KamelS.AbualigahL.EidA. (2021). Development and application of slime mould algorithm for optimal economic emission dispatch. Expert Syst. Appl.182, 115205. 10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115205

  • 31

    HayyolalamV.Pourhaji KazemA. A. (2019). Black widow optimization algorithm: A novel meta-heuristic approach for solving engineering optimization problems ✩. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell.87, 103249. 10.1016/j.engappai.2019.103249

  • 32

    HazraJ.SinhaA. (2011). A multi‐objective optimal power flow using particle swarm optimization. Eur. Trans. Electr. power21 (1), 1028–1045. 10.1002/etep.494

  • 33

    HeZ.YenG. G.DingJ. (2020). Knee-based decision making and visualization in many-objective optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput.25 (2), 292–306. 10.1109/tevc.2020.3027620

  • 34

    HeidariA. A.MirjaliliS.FarisH.AljarahI.MafarjaM.ChenH. (2019). Harris hawks optimization: Algorithm and applications. Future Generation Comput. Systems-the Int. J. Escience97, 849–872. 10.1016/j.future.2019.02.028

  • 35

    HornJ.NafpliotisN.GoldbergD. E. (1994). “A niched Pareto genetic algorithm for multiobjective optimization,” in Proceedings of the first IEEE conference on evolutionary computation. IEEE world congress on computational intelligence, Orlando, FL, USA, 27-29 June 1994 (IEEE).

  • 36

    HosnyM.KamelS.AbualigahL.EidA. (2021). Development and application of slime mould algorithm for optimal economic emission dispatch. Expert Syst. Appl.182, 115205. 10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115205

  • 37

    HotaP.BarisalA.ChakrabartiR. (2010). Economic emission load dispatch through fuzzy based bacterial foraging algorithm. Int. J. Electr. Power & Energy Syst.32, 794–803. 10.1016/j.ijepes.2010.01.016

  • 38

    HuJ.GuiW.HeidariA. A.CaiZ.LiangG.ChenH.et al (2022). Dispersed foraging slime mould algorithm: Continuous and binary variants for global optimization and wrapper-based feature selection. Knowledge-Based Syst.237, 107761. 10.1016/j.knosys.2021.107761

  • 39

    HuaY.LiuQ.HaoK.JinY. (2021). A survey of evolutionary algorithms for multi-objective optimization problems with irregular Pareto fronts. IEEE/CAA J. Automatica Sinica8 (2), 303–318. 10.1109/jas.2021.1003817

  • 40

    HussienA. G.HeidariA. A.YeX.LiangG.ChenH.PanZ. (2022). Boosting whale optimization with evolution strategy and Gaussian random walks: An image segmentation method. Eng. Comput.10.1007/s00366-021-01542-0

  • 41

    JadhavH. T.RajS.RoyR. (2013). Solution to economic emission load dispatch problem using modified artificial bee colony algorithm. 1–6.

  • 42

    JadounV. K.GuptaN.NiaziK. R.SwarnkarA. (2015). Modulated particle swarm optimization for economic emission dispatch. Int. J. Electr. Power & Energy Syst.73, 80–88. 10.1016/j.ijepes.2015.04.004

  • 43

    KaurS.DhimanG.SangalA. (2020). Tunicate swarm algorithm: A new bio-inspired based metaheuristic paradigm for global optimization. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell.90, 103541. 10.1016/j.engappai.2020.103541

  • 44

    KennedyJ.EberhartR. (1995). “Particle swarm optimization,” in Proceedings of ICNN'95-international conference on neural networks (IEEE).

  • 45

    KumarR.SaduA.PandaS. (2012). A novel multiobjective directed bee colony optimization algorithm for multiobjective emission constrained economic power dispatch. Int. J. Electr. Power & Energy Syst.43, 1241–1250. 10.1016/j.ijepes.2012.06.011

  • 46

    LiD.ZhangS.MaX. (2021). Dynamic module detection in temporal attributed networks of cancers. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinforma.19, 2219–2230. 10.1109/TCBB.2021.3069441

  • 47

    LiJ.-Y.ZhanZ. H.WangC.JinH.ZhangJ. (2020). Boosting data-driven evolutionary algorithm with localized data generation. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput.24 (5), 923–937. 10.1109/tevc.2020.2979740

  • 48

    LiJ.ChenC.ChenH.TongC. (2017). Towards context-aware social recommendation via individual trust. Knowledge-Based Syst.127, 58–66. 10.1016/j.knosys.2017.02.032

  • 49

    LiJ.ZhengX. L.ChenS. T.SongW. W.ChenD. r. (2014). An efficient and reliable approach for quality-of-service-aware service composition. Inf. Sci.269, 238–254. 10.1016/j.ins.2013.12.015

  • 50

    LiS.ChenH.WangM.HeidariA. A.MirjaliliS. (2020). Slime mould algorithm: A new method for stochastic optimization. Future Gener. Comput. Syst.111, 300–323. 10.1016/j.future.2020.03.055

  • 51

    LinY.SongH.KeF.YanW.LiuZ.CaiF. (2022). Optimal caching scheme in D2D networks with multiple robot helpers. Comput. Commun.181, 132–142. 10.1016/j.comcom.2021.09.027

  • 52

    LiuY.HeidariA. A.CaiZ.LiangG.ChenH.PanZ.et al (2022). Simulated annealing-based dynamic step shuffled frog leaping algorithm: Optimal performance design and feature selection. Neurocomputing503, 325–362. 10.1016/j.neucom.2022.06.075

  • 53

    MavrovouniotisM.YangS. (2011). A memetic ant colony optimization algorithm for the dynamic travelling salesman problem. Soft Comput.15, 1405–1425. 10.1007/s00500-010-0680-1

  • 54

    Modiri-DelshadM.Abd RahimN. (2015). Multi-objective backtracking search algorithm for economic emission dispatch problem. Appl. Soft Comput.40.

  • 55

    ÖzyönS.YasarC.DurmusB.TemurtasH. (2015). Opposition-based gravitational search algorithm applied to economic power dispatch problems consisting of thermal units with emission constraints. Turkish J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci.23, 2278–2288. 10.3906/elk-1305-258

  • 56

    PanigrahiB.Ravikumar PandiV.DasS.DasS. (2010). Multiobjective fuzzy dominance based bacterial foraging algorithm to solve economic emission dispatch problem. Energy35, 4761–4770. 10.1016/j.energy.2010.09.014

  • 57

    PierezanJ.CoelhoL. (2018). Coyote optimization algorithm: A new metaheuristic for global optimization problems. 1–8.

  • 58

    QiuS.ZhaoH.JiangN.WangZ.LiuL.AnY.et al (2022). Multi-sensor information fusion based on machine learning for real applications in human activity recognition: State-of-the-art and research challenges. Inf. Fusion80, 241–265. 10.1016/j.inffus.2021.11.006

  • 59

    QuB.-Y.LiangJ.ZhuY.WangZ.SuganthanP. (2016). Economic emission dispatch problems with stochastic wind power using summation based multi-objective evolutionary algorithm. Inf. Sci.351, 48–66. 10.1016/j.ins.2016.01.081

  • 60

    RoyP.BhuiS. (2013). Multi-objective quasi-oppositional teaching learning based optimization for economic emission load dispatch problem. Int. J. Electr. Power & Energy Syst.53, 937–948. 10.1016/j.ijepes.2013.06.015

  • 61

    SierpinaV. (2013). Steven PrattSuperFoods rx for PregnancyRefstyled. Canada: John Wiley & Sons Limited. Canada. EXPLORE: The Journal of Science and Healing 9.

  • 62

    SinghM.DhillonJ. S. (2016). Multiobjective thermal power dispatch using opposition-based greedy heuristic search. Int. J. Electr. Power & Energy Syst.82, 339–353. 10.1016/j.ijepes.2016.03.016

  • 63

    SongY.CaiX.ZhouX.ZhangB.ChenH.LiY.et al (2023). Dynamic hybrid mechanism-based differential evolution algorithm and its application. Expert Syst. Appl.213, 118834. 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118834

  • 64

    TuJ.HuilingC.MingjingW.AmirH. G. (2021). The colony predation algorithm. J. Bionic Eng.18 (3), 674–710. 10.1007/s42235-021-0050

  • 65

    WuD.ZhaoH.SongY.XuJ. (2020). An effective improved co-evolution ant colony optimisation algorithm with multi-strategies and its application. Int. J. Bio-Inspired Comput.16 (3), 158–170. 10.1504/ijbic.2020.10033314

  • 66

    WangG.-G.GaoD.PedryczW. (2022). Solving multi-objective fuzzy job-shop scheduling problem by a hybrid adaptive differential evolution algorithm. IEEE Trans. Industrial Inf.18, 8519–8528. 10.1109/tii.2022.3165636

  • 67

    WangM.ChenH.YangB.ZhaoX.HuL.CaiZ.et al (2017). Toward an optimal kernel extreme learning machine using a chaotic moth-flame optimization strategy with applications in medical diagnoses. Neurocomputing267, 69–84. 10.1016/j.neucom.2017.04.060

  • 68

    WangY.WenX.GuB.GaoF. (2022). Power scheduling optimization method of wind-hydrogen integrated energy system based on the improved AUKF algorithm. Mathematics10 (22), 4207. 10.3390/math10224207

  • 69

    WuS.-H.ZhanZ.-H.ZhangJ. (2021). Safe: Scale-adaptive fitness evaluation method for expensive optimization problems. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput.25 (3), 478–491. 10.1109/tevc.2021.3051608

  • 70

    WuY.ShengH.ZhangY.WangS.XiongZ.KeW. (2022). Hybrid motion model for multiple object tracking in mobile devices. IEEE Internet Things J., 1. 10.1109/jiot.2022.3219627

  • 71

    WuZ.LiG.ShenS.LianX.ChenE.XuG. (2021). Constructing dummy query sequences to protect location privacy and query privacy in location-based services. World Wide Web24 (1), 25–49. 10.1007/s11280-020-00830-x

  • 72

    WuZ.WangR.LiQ.LianX.XuG.ChenE.et al (2020). A location privacy-preserving system based on query range cover-up or location-based services. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.69, 5244–5254. 10.1109/tvt.2020.2981633

  • 73

    XuY.ChenH.HeidariA. A.LuoJ.ZhangQ.ZhaoX.et al (2019). An efficient chaotic mutative moth-flame-inspired optimizer for global optimization tasks. Expert Syst. Appl.129, 135–155. 10.1016/j.eswa.2019.03.043

  • 74

    XueJ.-K.ShenB. (2020). A novel swarm intelligence optimization approach: Sparrow search algorithm. Syst. Sci. Control Eng.8, 22–34. 10.1080/21642583.2019.1708830

  • 75

    YangY.ChenH.HeidariA. A.GandomiA. H. (2021). Hunger games search: Visions, conception, implementation, deep analysis, perspectives, and towards performance shifts. Expert Syst. Appl.177, 114864. 10.1016/j.eswa.2021.114864

  • 76

    YaşarC.ÖzyönS. (2012). Solution to scalarized environmental economic power dispatch problem by using genetic algorithm. Int. J. Electr. Power & Energy Syst.38, 54–62. 10.1016/j.ijepes.2011.12.020

  • 77

    YuH.SongJ.ChenC.HeidariA. A.LiuJ.ChenH.et al (2022). Image segmentation of Leaf Spot Diseases on Maize using multi-stage Cauchy-enabled grey wolf algorithm. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell.109, 104653. 10.1016/j.engappai.2021.104653

  • 78

    ZhanJ.WuQ. H.GuoC. X.ZhouX. X. (2014). Fast $\lambda$-Iteration method for economic dispatch with prohibited operating zones. IEEE Trans.29, 990–991. 10.1109/tpwrs.2013.2287995

  • 79

    ZhangK.WangZ.ChenG.ZhangL.YangY.YaoC.et al (2022). Training effective deep reinforcement learning agents for real-time life-cycle production optimization. J. Petroleum Sci. Eng.208, 109766. 10.1016/j.petrol.2021.109766

  • 80

    ZhangL.WangJ.WangW.JinZ.SuY.ChenH. (2022). Smart contract vulnerability detection combined with multi-objective detection. Comput. Netw.217, 109289. 10.1016/j.comnet.2022.109289

  • 81

    ZhangX.FanC.XiaoZ.ZhaoL.ChenH.ChangX. (2022). Random reconstructed unpaired image-to-image translation. IEEE Trans. Industrial Inf., 1. 10.1109/TII.2022.3160705

  • 82

    ZhangX.ZhengJ.WangD.TangG.ZhouZ.LinZ. (2022). Structured sparsity optimization with non-convex surrogates of l2, 0-norm: A unified algorithmic framework. IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis Mach. Intell., 1–18. 10.1109/tpami.2022.3213716

  • 83

    ZhangX.ZhengJ.WangD.ZhaoL. (2020). Exemplar-based denoising: A unified low-rank recovery framework. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol.30 (8), 2538–2549. 10.1109/tcsvt.2019.2927603

  • 84

    ZhangY.LiuR.HeidariA. A.WangX.ChenY.WangM.et al (2021). Towards augmented kernel extreme learning models for bankruptcy prediction: Algorithmic behavior and comprehensive analysis. Neurocomputing430, 185–212. 10.1016/j.neucom.2020.10.038

  • 85

    ZhengW.LiuX.NiX.YinL.YangB. (2021). Improving visual reasoning through semantic representation. IEEE access9, 91476–91486. 10.1109/access.2021.3074937

  • 86

    ZhengW.LiuX.YinL. (2021). Sentence representation method based on multi-layer semantic network. Appl. Sci.11 (3), 1316. 10.3390/app11031316

  • 87

    ZhengW.TianX.YangB.LiuS.DingY.TianJ.et al (2022). A few shot classification methods based on multiscale relational networks. Appl. Sci.12 (8), 4059. 10.3390/app12084059

  • 88

    ZhengW.YinL.ChenX.MaZ.LiuS.YangB. (2021). Knowledge base graph embedding module design for Visual question answering model. Pattern Recognit.120, 108153. 10.1016/j.patcog.2021.108153

  • 89

    ZhengW.ZhouY.LiuS.TianJ.YangB.YinL. (2022). A deep fusion matching network semantic reasoning model. Appl. Sci.12 (7), 3416. 10.3390/app12073416

  • 90

    ZouD.LiS.LiZ.KongX. (2017). A new global particle swarm optimization for the economic emission dispatch with or without transmission losses. Energy Convers. Manag.139, 45–70. 10.1016/j.enconman.2017.02.035

Summary

Keywords

economic emission dispatch, particle swarm optimization, kernel search optimization, Cauchy perturbation, swarm intelligence

Citation

Dong R, Ma L, Chen H, Heidari AA and Liang G (2023) Hybrid kernel search and particle swarm optimization with Cauchy perturbation for economic emission load dispatch with valve point effect. Front. Energy Res. 10:1061408. doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2022.1061408

Received

04 October 2022

Accepted

05 December 2022

Published

19 January 2023

Volume

10 - 2022

Edited by

K. Sudhakar, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia

Reviewed by

Bishwajit Dey, Gandhi Institute of Engineering and Technology University (GIET), India

Amit Kumar, Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, India

Updates

Copyright

© 2023 Dong, Ma, Chen, Heidari and Liang.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Huiling Chen, ; Guoxi Liang,

This article was submitted to Solar Energy, a section of the journal Frontiers in Energy Research

Disclaimer

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Outline

Figures

Cite article

Copy to clipboard


Export citation file


Share article

Share on WeChat

Scan with WeChat to share this article

Article metrics