| Literature DB >> 34785862 |
Zulqurnain Sabir1, Muhammad Asif Zahoor Raja2, Dumitru Baleanu3,4, Korhan Cengiz5, Muhammad Shoaib6.
Abstract
The current investigation is related to the design of novel integrated neuroswarming heuristic paradigm using Gudermannian artificial neural networks (GANNs) optimized with particle swarm optimization (PSO) aid with active-set (AS) algorithm, i.e., GANN-PSOAS, for solving the nonlinear third-order Emden-Fowler model (NTO-EFM) involving single as well as multiple singularities. The Gudermannian activation function is exploited to construct the GANNs-based differential mapping for NTO-EFMs, and these networks are arbitrary integrated to formulate the fitness function of the system. An objective function is optimized using hybrid heuristics of PSO with AS, i.e., PSOAS, for finding the weights of GANN. The correctness, effectiveness and robustness of the designed GANN-PSOAS are verified through comparison with the exact solutions on three problems of NTO-EFMs. The assessments on statistical observations demonstrate the performance on different measures for the accuracy, consistency and stability of the proposed GANN-PSOAS solver.Entities:
Keywords: Active-set scheme; Emden–Fowler; Gudermannian function; Particle swarm optimization; Statistical analysis
Year: 2021 PMID: 34785862 PMCID: PMC8581607 DOI: 10.1007/s11071-021-06901-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nonlinear Dyn ISSN: 0924-090X Impact factor: 5.022
Fig. 1Set of weights and proposed/true solutions for all the problems of the NTO-EFM model
Fig. 2AE values and performance measures based on GANN-PSOAS approach for all the problems of the NTO-EFM
Statistics investigation via designed GANN-PSOAS approach for all the problems of the NTO-EFM
| Mode | The solution | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 1 | ||
| P 1 | Min | 6 × 10–6 | 2 × 10–6 | 1 × 10–8 | 1 × 10–5 | 3 × 10–7 | 3 × 10–6 | 2 × 10–6 | 6 × 10–6 | 1 × 10–5 | 1 × 10–5 | 8 × 10–6 |
| Mean | 7 × 10–2 | 7 × 10–2 | 7 × 10–2 | 7 × 10–2 | 8 × 10–2 | 7 × 10–2 | 7 × 10–2 | 7 × 10–2 | 6 × 10–2 | 5 × 10–2 | 4 × 10–2 | |
| SD | 2 × 10–1 | 2 × 10–1 | 2 × 10–1 | 2 × 10–1 | 2 × 10–1 | 1 × 10–1 | 1 × 10–1 | 1 × 10–1 | 1 × 10–1 | 1 × 10–1 | 1 × 10–1 | |
| Med | 7 × 10–4 | 9 × 10–4 | 9 × 10–4 | 9 × 10–4 | 9 × 10–4 | 8 × 10–4 | 5 × 10–4 | 6 × 10–4 | 5 × 10–4 | 3 × 10–4 | 4 × 10–4 | |
| S.IR | 1 × 10–3 | 3 × 10–3 | 7 × 10–3 | 7 × 10–3 | 6 × 10–3 | 6 × 10–3 | 5 × 10–3 | 3 × 10–3 | 2 × 10–3 | 9 × 10–4 | 3 × 10–3 | |
| P 2 | Min | 5 × 10–6 | 1 × 10–6 | 1 × 10–5 | 6 × 10–6 | 1 × 10–5 | 3 × 10–5 | 3 × 10–5 | 3 × 10–5 | 3 × 10–5 | 4 × 10–5 | 5 × 10–5 |
| Mean | 5 × 10–2 | 7 × 10–2 | 1 × 10–1 | 1 × 10–1 | 1 × 10–1 | 1 × 10–1 | 1 × 10–1 | 2 × 10–1 | 2 × 10–1 | 3 × 10–1 | 4 × 10–1 | |
| SD | 2 × 10–1 | 2 × 10–1 | 2 × 10–1 | 3 × 10–1 | 3 × 10–1 | 3 × 10–1 | 4 × 10–1 | 5 × 10–1 | 6 × 10–1 | 7 × 10–1 | 1 × 10–1 | |
| Med | 1 × 10–4 | 1 × 10–4 | 2 × 10–4 | 1 × 10–4 | 2 × 10–4 | 2 × 10–4 | 2 × 10–4 | 2 × 10–4 | 2 × 10–4 | 3 × 10–4 | 4 × 10–4 | |
| S.IR | 9 × 10–5 | 2 × 10–4 | 2 × 10–4 | 3 × 10–4 | 3 × 10–4 | 4 × 10–4 | 5 × 10–4 | 6 × 10–4 | 7 × 10–4 | 9 × 10–4 | 1 × 10–3 | |
| P 3 | Min | 2 × 10–1 | 1 × 10–7 | 1 × 10–6 | 1 × 10–6 | 1 × 10–7 | 1 × 10–7 | 1 × 10–7 | 3 × 10–7 | 6 × 10–7 | 9 × 10–7 | 1 × 10–6 |
| Mean | 3 × 10–3 | 3 × 10–3 | 3 × 10–3 | 3 × 10–3 | 3 × 10–3 | 3 × 10–3 | 3 × 10–3 | 3 × 10–3 | 3 × 103 | 3 × 10–3 | 3 × 10–3 | |
| SD | 2 × 10–2 | 2 × 10–2 | 2 × 10–2 | 2 × 10–2 | 2 × 10–2 | 2 × 10–2 | 2 × 10–2 | 2 × 10–2 | 2 × 10–2 | 2 × 10–2 | 2 × 10–2 | |
| Med | 1 × 10–8 | 9 × 10–6 | 1 × 10–5 | 1 × 10–5 | 9 × 10–6 | 8 × 10–6 | 9 × 10–6 | 9 × 10–6 | 1 × 10–5 | 1 × 10–5 | 1 × 10–5 | |
| S.IR | 3 × 10–8 | 6 × 10–6 | 7 × 10–6 | 6 × 10–6 | 6 × 10–6 | 7 × 10–6 | 7 × 10–6 | 7 × 10–6 | 7 × 10–6 | 7 × 10–6 | 7 × 10–6 | |
Global presentations for all the problems of the NTO-EFM
| Problem | G.FIT | G.TIC | G.ENSE | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | S.IR | Mean | S.IR | Mea | S.IR | |
| 1 | 3.4375E−5 | 1.3305E−4 | 7.7371E−8 | 5.2754E−7 | 8.5371E−7 | 7.7933E−5 |
| 2 | 1.2812E−5 | 2.6652E−5 | 2.5886E−8 | 5.7705E−8 | 1.7059E−7 | 1.7387E−6 |
| 3 | 6.5333E−8 | 1.1351E−7 | 1.2358E−9 | 1.3528E−9 | 3.3940E−8 | 4.6050E−8 |
Complexity performance for all the problems of the NTO-EFM
| Problem | Generations | Execution time | Function Counts | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| 1 | 27.973692 | 5.1925867 | 1793.08 | 893.78 | 78,090.82 | 14,423.597 |
| 2 | 26.653853 | 4.812006 | 1628.54 | 601.73 | 75,292.48 | 10,900.807 |
| 3 | 25.883937 | 10.179233 | 2466.8 | 1707.84 | 76,756.66 | 32,558.828 |