A multi-objective optimization framework with rule-based initialization for multi-stage missile target allocation

Shiqi Zou; Xiaoping Shi; Shenmin Song; Shiqi Zou; Xiaoping Shi; Shenmin Song

doi:10.3934/mbe.2023306

Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering

2023, Volume 20, Issue 4: 7088-7112. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023306

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

A multi-objective optimization framework with rule-based initialization for multi-stage missile target allocation

1.
Control and Simulation Center, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150080, China
2.
Center for Control Theory and Guidance Technology, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150080, China

Academic Editor: Runzhang Xu

Received: 30 November 2022 Revised: 15 January 2023 Accepted: 28 January 2023 Published: 09 February 2023

This paper investigates a novel multi-objective optimization framework for the multi-stage missile target allocation (M-MTA) problem, which also widely exists in other real-world complex systems. Specifically, a constrained model of M-MTA is built with the trade-off between minimizing the survivability of targets and minimizing the cost consumption of missiles. Moreover, a multi-objective optimization algorithm (NSGA-MTA) is proposed for M-MTA, where the hybrid encoding mechanism establishes the expression of the model and algorithm. Furthermore, rule-based initialization is developed to enhance the quality and searchability of feasible solutions. An efficient non-dominated sorting method is introduced into the framework as an effective search strategy. Besides, the genetic operators with the greedy mechanism and random repair strategy are involved in handling the constraints with maintaining diversity. The results of numerical experiments demonstrate that NSGA-MTA performs better in diversity and convergence than the excellent current algorithms in metrics and Pareto front obtained in 15 scenarios. Taguchi method is also adopted to verify the contribution of proposed strategies, and the results show that these strategies are practical and promotive to performance improvement.

Keywords:

Citation: Shiqi Zou, Xiaoping Shi, Shenmin Song. A multi-objective optimization framework with rule-based initialization for multi-stage missile target allocation[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(4): 7088-7112. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023306

Related Papers:

[1]	Zhongdi Cen, Jian Huang, Aimin Xu . A posteriori mesh method for a system of singularly perturbed initial value problems. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(9): 16719-16732. doi: 10.3934/math.2022917
[2]	Lin Fan, Shunchu Li, Dongfeng Shao, Xueqian Fu, Pan Liu, Qinmin Gui . Elastic transformation method for solving the initial value problem of variable coefficient nonlinear ordinary differential equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(7): 11972-11991. doi: 10.3934/math.2022667
[3]	Shuqin Zhang, Jie Wang, Lei Hu . On definition of solution of initial value problem for fractional differential equation of variable order. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(7): 6845-6867. doi: 10.3934/math.2021401
[4]	Jean-Paul Chehab, Denys Dutykh . On time relaxed schemes and formulations for dispersive wave equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2019, 4(2): 254-278. doi: 10.3934/math.2019.2.254
[5]	Yu He, Jianing Yang, Theodore E. Simos, Charalampos Tsitouras . A novel class of Runge-Kutta-Nyström pairs sharing orders 8(6). AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(2): 4882-4895. doi: 10.3934/math.2024237
[6]	Jiadong Qiu, Danfu Han, Hao Zhou . A general conservative eighth-order compact finite difference scheme for the coupled Schrödinger-KdV equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(5): 10596-10618. doi: 10.3934/math.2023538
[7]	Sara S. Alzaid, Pawan Kumar Shaw, Sunil Kumar . A numerical study of fractional population growth and nuclear decay model. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(6): 11417-11442. doi: 10.3934/math.2022637
[8]	Daniel Clemente-López, Esteban Tlelo-Cuautle, Luis-Gerardo de la Fraga, José de Jesús Rangel-Magdaleno, Jesus Manuel Munoz-Pacheco . Poincaré maps for detecting chaos in fractional-order systems with hidden attractors for its Kaplan-Yorke dimension optimization. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(4): 5871-5894. doi: 10.3934/math.2022326
[9]	Sen Ming, Xiaodong Wang, Xiongmei Fan, Xiao Wu . Blow-up of solutions for coupled wave equations with damping terms and derivative nonlinearities. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 26854-26876. doi: 10.3934/math.20241307
[10]	Huichol Choi, Kinam Sin, Sunae Pak, Kyongjin Sok, Sungryol So . Representation of solution of initial value problem for fuzzy linear multi-term fractional differential equation with continuous variable coefficient. AIMS Mathematics, 2019, 4(3): 613-625. doi: 10.3934/math.2019.3.613

Abstract

1. Introduction

We are exploring the initial value problem (IVP) defined as:

$\begin{equation} z^{\prime \prime } = f(t,z),\;z(t_{0}) = z_0,\;z^{\prime}(t_0) = z^{\prime}_0, \end{equation}$

(1.1)

where $f: \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^m\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}^m$ and $z_0, \; z^{\prime}_0\in \mathbb{R}^m$ . The above equation is widely applicable in various scientific and engineering contexts. Notably, Eq (1.1) lacks $z^{\prime }$ .

The Numerov method facilitates the numerical advancement of the solution from $t_k$ to $t_{k+1} = h+t_k$ , a well-established approach for solving Eq (1.1). It is expressed as:

$z_{k+1} = 2z_k-z_{k-1}+\frac{h^2}{12}\left(f_{k+1}+10f_k+f_{k-1}\right),$

where $z_k\approx z(t_k)$ and $f_k\approx z^{\prime \prime }_n = f(t_k, z_k)$ . Note that $f_k, z_k\in\mathbb{R}^m$ .

Hairer ^[1], Cash ^[2] and Chawla ^[3] introduced hybrid implicit Numerov-type methods (i.e., using non-mesh points) approximately 40–45 years ago. Addressing the P-stability property, crucial for handling stiff oscillatory problems, was the primary challenge then. Chawla ^[4] proposed the modified Numerov scheme, evaluated explicitly as follows:

$\begin{equation} \begin{array}{c} v_1 = z_{k-1}, \\ v_2 = z_k, \\ v_3 = 2z_k-z_{k-1}+h^2f(t_k,v_2), \\ z_{k+1}-2z_k+z_{k-1} = \frac{1}{12}h^2\cdot (f(t_{k+1},v_3)+10f(t_k,v_2)+f(t_{k-1},v_1)), \\ \end{array} \end{equation}$

(1.2)

where $h$ is a constant step length:

$h = t_{k}-t_{k-1} = t_{k+1}-t_{k} = \cdots = t_1-t_0.$

The vectors $z_{k+1}, \; z_k$ , and $z_{k-1}$ approximate $z(t_k+h), \; z(t_k)$ , and $z(t_k-h)$ respectively, while $v_1\in\mathbb{R}^m, \; v_2\in\mathbb{R}^m$ , and $v_3\in\mathbb{R}^m$ represent the stages (alternatively named: function evaluations) used by the method.

We utilize the information known at the mesh:

$v_1 = z_{k-1},\:v_2 = z_k.$

Since $f(t_{k-1}, v_1)$ is computed in the previous step, only $f(t_{k+1}, v_3)$ and $f(t_{k}, v_2)$ need evaluation each step, resulting in only two function evaluations per step.

Tsitouras then introduced a Runge–Kutta–Nyström (RKN)-style method ^[5], significantly reducing the cost. Consequently, only four steps are required to create a sixth-order method, whereas previous implementations required six function evaluations (see ^[6]).

Subsequent to this, our group extensively investigated the topic. Tsitouras developed eighth-order methods with nine steps per step in ^[7]. Ninth-order methods were studied in ^[8]. Concurrently, a group of Spanish researchers conducted highly interesting work on the same topic ^[9,10,11].

In this study, we aim to present a new method for better addressing problems with periodic solutions. Traditionally, various properties from a simple test equation are fulfilled for this purpose. The novelty lies in training the available free parameters across a wide set of relevant problems. Differential evolution is employed for this training. It is anticipated that this methodology will yield a method better tuned for oscillatory problems.

2. Order conditions for hybrid Numerov-type methods

For the numerical treatment of Eq (1.1) with higher-order algebraic methods, there exists a considerable demand. We can represent the independent variable $t$ as one of the components of $z$ (if necessary, add $t^{\prime\prime} = 0$ see [, pg. 286] for details). Consequently, our focus, without loss of generality, lies on the autonomous system $z^{\prime\prime} = f(z)$ . Subsequently, a hybrid Numerov method with $s$ stages, as delineated in ^[7], may be expressed as:

$\begin{equation} \begin{array}{c} z_{k+1} = 2z_{k}-z_{k-1}+h^2\cdot \left( w\otimes I_{s}\right) \cdot f\left( v\right) ,\,\ v = \left( \textbf{1}+a\right) \otimes z_{k}-a\otimes z_{k-1}+ h^2\cdot \left( D\otimes I_{s}\right) \cdot f\left( v\right) \end{array} \end{equation}$

(2.1)

where $I_s \in \mathbb{R}^{s \times s}$ represents the identity matrix, $D \in \mathbb{R}^{s\times s}, w^T \in \mathbb{R}^s, a\; \in \mathbb{R}^s$ denote the coefficient matrices of the method, and

$\textbf{1} = [1\; 1\; \cdots 1]^T \in \mathbb{R}^s.$

To present the coefficients, we utilize the Butcher tableau ^[13,14],

$\begin{array}{c|c} a & D \\ \hline & w \end{array}.$

The method described in (1.2) can be represented using matrices ^[8]. As the function evaluations are computed sequentially, these methods are explicit. Therefore, $D$ represents a strictly lower triangular matrix. For the case when $s = 8$ , the method takes the following structure:

$\begin{eqnarray*} f_{k-1} & = &f\left( t_{k-1},z_{k-1}\right) \\ f_{k} & = &f\left( t_{k},z_{k}\right) \\ z_{\alpha} & = &a_{3}z_{k-1}+\left( 1-a_{3}\right) z_{k}+h^{2}\left(d_{31}f_{k-1}+a_{d2}f_{k}\right) ,\ \\ f_{\alpha} & = &f\left( t_{k}-a_{3}h,z_{\alpha}\right) , \\ z_{\beta} & = &a_{4}z_{k-1}+\left( 1-a_{4}\right) z_{k}+h^{2}\left(d_{41}f_{k-1}+d_{42}f_{k}+d_{43}f_{\alpha}\right) , \\ f_{\beta} & = &f\left( t_{k}-a_{4}h,z_{\beta}\right) , \\ z_{c} & = &a_{5}z_{k-1}+\left( 1-a_{5}\right) z_{k}+h^{2}\left(d_{51}f_{k-1}+d_{52}f_{k}+d_{53}f_{\alpha}+d_{54}f_{\beta}\right) , \\ f_{c} & = &f\left( t_{k}-a_{5}h,z_{c}\right) , \\ z_{\delta} & = &a_{6}z_{k-1}+\left( 1-a_{6}\right) z_{k}+h^{2}\left(d_{61}f_{k-1}+d_{62}f_{k}+d_{63}f_{\alpha}+d_{64}f_{\beta}+d_{65}f_{c}\right) , \\ f_{\delta} & = &f\left( t_{k}-a_{6}h,z_{\delta}\right) , \\ z_{e} & = &a_{7}z_{k-1}+\left( 1-a_{7}\right) z_{k}+h^{2}\left(d_{71}f_{k-1}+d_{72}f_{k}+d_{73}f_{\alpha}+d_{74}f_{\beta}+d_{75}f_{c}+d_{76}f_{\delta} \right) , \\ f_{e} & = &f\left( t_{k}-a_{7}h,z_{e}\right) , \\ z_{g} & = &a_{8}z_{k-1}+\left( 1-a_{8}\right) z_{k}+h^{2}\left( d_{81}f_{k-1}+d_{82}f_{k}+d_{83}f_{\alpha}+d_{84}f_{\beta}+d_{85}f_{c}+d_{86}f_{\delta}+d_{87}f_{e}\right) , \\ z_{k+1} & = &2z_{k}-z_{k-1}+h^{2}\left( w_{1}f_{k-1}+w_{2}f_{k}+w_{3}f_{\alpha}+w_{4}f_{\beta}+w_{5}f_{c}+w_{6}f_{\delta}+w_{7}f_{e}+w_{8}f_{g}\right) . \end{eqnarray*}$

After assuming ^[15]

$w_3 = 0,w_5 = w_4,w_7 = w_6,w_8 = w_1,a_5 = -a_4,a_6 = -a_7,a_8 = 1,$

the associated matrices take the form

$\begin{equation*} D = \left[ \begin{array}{llllllll} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ d_{31} & d_{32} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ d_{41} & d_{42} & d_{43} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ d_{51} & d_{52} & d_{53} & d_{54} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ d_{61} & d_{62} & d_{63} & d_{64} & d_{65} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ d_{71} & d_{72} & d_{73} & d_{74} & d_{75} & d_{76} & 0 & 0 \\ d_{81} & d_{82} & d_{83} & d_{84} & d_{85} & d_{86} & d_{87} & 0 \end{array} \right] , \end{equation*}$

$w = \left[ \begin{array}{llllllll} w_1 & w_2 & 0 & w_4 & w_4 & w_6 & w_6 & w_1 \end{array} \right]\;{\rm and}\; a = \left[ \begin{array}{llllllll} -1 & 0 & a_3 & a_4 & -a_4 & -a_5 & a_5 & 1 \end{array} \right] ^T. \nonumber$

Given that $f_{k-1}$ is determined from the preceding stage, seven function assessments are performed per step. To achieve an algebraic order eight, it is imperative to nullify the corresponding error truncation components (refer to ^[16]).

Our technique encompasses a total of $34$ parameters. As noted earlier, there exist $27$ coefficients for matrix $D$ , denoted as

$d_{31}, d_{32}, d_{41}, d_{42}, d_{43}, \cdots , d_{87}.$

Moreover, there are $4$ coefficients associated with vector $w$ and $3$ elements pertaining to vector $a$ . The quantity of condition equations for various orders matches those of the RKN methods ^[17,18], as presented in . To attain an eighth order, a cumulative total of $1+1+2+3+6+10+20+36 = 79$ equations must be fulfilled. The equations up to the ninth order can be found in assorted tables within ^[16].

Table 1. Number of order conditions.

Order $p$	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
No of conditions	1	1	2	3	6	10	20	36	72	137	275

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

The parameters are fewer than the equations, presenting a comparable challenge encountered in devising Runge-Kutta (RK) techniques. Hence, we are compelled to employ simplifying assumptions that diminish the quantity of conditions, thereby also decreasing the number of coefficients. The most prevalent options include

$\begin{equation} \begin{array}{c} (D\cdot \textbf{1})_{(3-8)} = \frac 12\left( a^2+a\right)_{(3-8)} \\ (D\cdot a)_{(3-8)} = \frac 16\left( a^3-a\right)_{(3-8)} \\ (D\cdot a^2)_{(4-8)} = \frac {1}{12}\left( a^4+a\right)_{(4-8)} \end{array} \end{equation}$

(2.2)

with

$a^i = \left[ \begin{array}{llllllll} (-1)^i & 0 & a_3^i & a_4^i & (-a_4)^i & (-a_5)^i & a_5^i & 1\end{array} \right]^T,$

and for $\kappa_1 < \kappa_2$

$(v)_{(\kappa_1-\kappa_2)} = [v_{\kappa_1}\; v_{\kappa_1+1} \cdots v_{\kappa_2}]^T.$

The remaining order conditions are presented in Table 2. In this table, the symbol "*" can be interpreted as element-wise multiplication:

$[u_1\;\;u_2 \cdots u_n]^T*[v_1\;\;v_2 \cdots v_n]^T = [u_1 v_1\;\;u_2 v_2 \cdots u_n n_n]^T.$

Table 2. Equations of condition up to eighth order, under assumptions (2.2).

$w\cdot \textbf{1}=1,$ $w\cdot a^2=\frac16,$	$w\cdot a^4=\frac{1}{15},$	$w\cdot a^6=\frac{1}{28},$
$w\cdot D^{2}\cdot a=0,$	$w\cdot D^{3}\cdot \textbf{1}=\frac{1}{20160},$	$w\cdot D\cdot \left(a\ast D c\right) =-\frac{11}{15120},$
$w\cdot D^{3}\cdot a=0,$	$w\cdot D\cdot \left(a\ast D^{2}\cdot \textbf{1}\right) =\frac{1}{7560},$	$w\cdot \left(a\ast D^{2}c\right) =\frac{17}{10080},$
$w\cdot \left(a\ast D\cdot \left(a\ast D\cdot a\right) \right) =-\frac{1}{720},$	$w\cdot \left(a\ast D^{3}\cdot \textbf{1}\right) =\frac{23}{60480},$	$w\cdot \left(D\cdot \textbf{1}\ast D^{2}\cdot a\right) =\frac{17}{20160}.$

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

This operation holds lower precedence. Parentheses, exponents, and dot products are always computed prior to "*".

Given the thirteen order conditions outlined in and the fulfillment of $17$ assumptions (2.2), we determine that only thirty equations are necessary. This results in four coefficients remaining as variables. Let's consider $a_3, a_4, a_5$ , and $d_{64}$ . The issue can be resolved explicitly, and the corresponding efficient Mathematica ^[19] module is depicted in Table 3.

Table 3. Mathematica listing for the derivation of the coefficients with respect to

$a_3, a_4, a_5$ and

$d_{64}$ .

BeginPackage["Numerov8'"];

Clear["Numerov8'*"]

Numerov8::usage = " Numerov8[x1, x2, x3, x4] for 7-stages 8-order explicit Numerov"

Begin["'Private'"];

Clear["Numerov8'Private'*"];

Numerov8[aa3_?NumericQ, aa4_?NumericQ, aa5_?NumericQ, dd64_?NumericQ] :=

Module[{a3, a4, a5, w, w1, w2, w4, w6, w7, a, d, d31, d32, d41, d42, d43,

d85, d54, d61, d63, d72, d74, d53, d51, d84, d62, d52, e, so,

d87, d75, d64, d71, d81, d83, d85, d65, d73, d82, d86, d76},

w = {w1, w2, 0, w4, w4, w6, w6, w1};

a = {-1, 0, a3, a4, -a4, -a5, a5, 1};

d = {{0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0},

{0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0},

{d31, d32, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0},

{d41, d42, d43, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0},

{d51, d52, d53, d54, 0, 0, 0, 0},

{d61, d62, d63, d64, d65, 0, 0, 0},

{d71, d72, d73, d74, d75, d76, 0, 0},

{d81, d82, d83, d84, d85, d86, d87, 0}};

e = {1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1};

a3 = Rationalize[aa3, 10^-17]; a4 = Rationalize[aa4, 10^-17];

a5 = Rationalize[aa5, 10^-17]; d64 = Rationalize[dd64, 10^-17];

so = Solve[{-1 + w. e, -(1/12) + w. a^2/2, -(1/360) + w. a^4/24,

-(1/20160) + w. a^6/720} == {0, 0, 0, 0}, {w1, w2, w4, w6}];

w = Simplify[w /. so[[1]]];

so = Solve[

Join[(d. e - 1/2*(a^2 + a))[[3;; 8]], (d. a - 1/6*(a^3 - a))[[3;; 8]],

(d. a^2 - 1/12*(a^4 + a))[[4;; 8]], {w. d. d. a,

w. d. d. d. e - 1/20160, w. d. (a d. a) + 11/15120,

- w. d. d. d. a, w. d. (a d. d. e) + 1/7560,

w. (a d. d. a) - 17/10080, w. (a d. (a d. a)) + 1/720,

w. (a d. d. d. e) - 23/60480, w. (d. e d. d. a) - 17/20160}]

== Array[0 &, 26],

{d32, d31, d42, d41, d52, d51, d62, d61, d72, d71, d82, d81, d43,

d53, d63, d73, d83, d54, d65, d74, d75, d76, d84, d85, d86, d87}];

d = Simplify[d /. so][[1]];

Return[{a, w, d}]]

End[];

EndPackage[];

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

For comprehensive details regarding the computation of truncation error coefficients, refer to the comprehensive overview in ^[16]. Coleman ^[20] emphasized the utilization of the B2 series representation of the local truncation error, drawing connections with the T2 rooted trees.

3. Phase-lag and amplification errors

In ^[21], the scalar test problem

$\begin{equation} z^{\prime\prime } = -\omega ^2z,\; \; \omega \in \mathbb{R}, \end{equation}$

(3.1)

was introduced to examine the periodic characteristics of techniques applied to solve (1.1).

Upon employing a Numerov-style approach akin to (2.1) to tackle problem (3.1), a discrete equation is formulated, taking the form

$\begin{equation} z_{k+1}+S\left( \psi^2\right) z_{k}+P\left( \psi^2\right) z_{k-1} = 0, \end{equation}$

(3.2)

where $\psi = \omega h,$ and $S\left(\psi^2\right), P\left(\psi^2\right)$ represent polynomials in $\psi^2$ .

The periodicity interval $(0, \psi_0)$ encompasses all $0 < \psi < \psi_0$ with $P\left(\psi^2\right)\equiv 1$ and $0 < | S\left(\psi^2\right) | < 2$ . A method deemed P-stable exhibits $\psi_0 = \infty$ .

The fulfillment of the zero dissipation property necessitates that

$P\left( \psi^2\right) = 1-\psi^2 w\left(I_s+\psi^2 D \right)^{-1} a\equiv 1,$

ensuring that the numerical method approximating (3.1) remains within its cyclic orbit.

The dissipation order $\rho$ of a method is characterized by the number for which $1-P\left(\psi^2\right) = O(\psi^{\rho})$ . It is worth noting that

$P\left( \psi^2\right) = 1+\sum\limits_{j = 0}^\infty \psi^{2j+1} w \cdot D^j \cdot a = 1+\psi q_1+\psi^3 q_3+\cdots.$

A method with algebraic order $2 \cdot i$ satisfies the terms in the aforementioned series for $j = 0, 1, \cdots, i-1$ . Consequently, for an eighth order method, it is advantageous to address

$q_9 = w \cdot D^4 \cdot a = 0, \; q_{11} = w \cdot D^5 \cdot a = 0, \cdots \; \; \mbox{etc.},$

to enhance the dissipation order. In the case of a zero-dissipative method, only $q_9 = z_{11} = q_{13} = q_{15} = q_{17} = 0$ is necessary, and as for the lower triangular matrix $D$ , all other $q'$ -s vanish,

$q_{2i+1} = w \cdot D^i \cdot a = 0, \; \mbox{for} \; i > 8.$

The difference in angles between the numerical and theoretical cyclic solution of (3.1) is called phase-lag. Since the solution of (3.1) is

$z(t) = e^{\omega t\sqrt{-1}},$

we may write Eq (3.2) as

$\begin{equation} \Lambda = e^{2\psi\sqrt{-1}}+S\left( \psi^2\right) \cdot e^{\psi\sqrt{-1}}+P\left( \psi^2\right) = O(\psi^{\tau}), \end{equation}$

(3.3)

with the number $\tau$ the phase-lag order of the method. Since

$S\left( \psi^{2} \right) = 2-\psi^2 w \cdot \left(I+\psi^2 D \right)^{-1} \cdot \left( \textbf{1}+a \right),$

we observe that expression (3.3) is a series of the form

$\begin{equation} \Lambda = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^\infty \psi^{2i} (-1)^{i+1} \left( \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{i} \frac 1{(2(i-j))!} w \cdot D^{j-1} \cdot \left( \textbf{1} + a \right) - w \cdot D^{i-1} \cdot a - 2 \sum\limits_{j = 1}^i \frac {1}{(2j)! \cdot (2(i-j))!} \right), \end{equation}$

(3.4)

or in a compact form

$\Lambda = \psi^2 \lambda_2+\psi^4 \lambda_4+\psi^6 \lambda_6+O(\psi^{8}).$

In this series, $\lambda_2 = \lambda_4 = \cdots = \lambda_{2i} = 0$ for $i = 1, 2, \cdots, \lfloor \frac{p-1}{2} \rfloor+1$ , where $p$ denotes the algebraic order of the method. For eighth order methods, the order conditions yield $\lambda_2 = \lambda_4 = \lambda_6 = \lambda_8 = 0$ . Given that $p = 8$ , and for $i = 3$ , we infer from (3.4):

$\lambda_6 = \frac{1}{(2\cdot(3-1))!}w\cdot( \textbf{1}+a)+\frac{1}{2!}w\cdot D\cdot( \textbf{1}+a)+w\cdot D^2\cdot \textbf{1}-2\cdot(\frac{1}{2!4!}+\frac{1}{4!2!}+\frac{1}{6!0!}) = 0.$

In case of $i = 4$ , we get (observe already that $w\cdot \textbf{1} = 1, \; w\cdot c = 0, \; w\cdot D\cdot c = 0,$ etc.),

$\lambda_8 = -\frac{127}{20160}+\frac{1}{720} (w\cdot a+w\cdot \textbf{1})+\frac{1}{24}(w\cdot D\cdot a+w\cdot D\cdot \textbf{1})$

$+\frac{1}{2}(w\cdot D^2\cdot a +w\cdot D^2 \cdot \textbf{1})+w\cdot D^3\cdot \textbf{1} = 0.$

Further we have that,

$\lambda_{10} = w\cdot D^4\cdot \textbf{1}-\frac{1}{1814400},$

$\lambda_{12} = \frac12w\cdot D^4\cdot a+w\cdot D^5\cdot \textbf{1}-\frac{1}{239500800},$

$\lambda_{14} = \frac{1}{24} w\cdot D^4\cdot c+\frac{1}{2} w\cdot D^5\cdot a+\frac{1}{2} w\cdot D^5\cdot \textbf{1}+w\cdot D^6\cdot \textbf{1}-\frac{23}{10897286400},$

$\lambda_{16} = \frac{1}{720} w\cdot D^4\cdot c+\frac{1}{24} w\cdot d^5\cdot c+\frac{1}{24} w\cdot D^5\cdot \textbf{1}$

$\; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; +\frac{1}{2}w\cdot D^6\cdot c+\frac{1}{2} w\cdot D^6\cdot \textbf{1}+w\cdot D^7\cdot \textbf{1}-\frac{647}{3487131648000}.$

Then we may ask for simultaneous satisfaction of phase-lag order conditions:

$\begin{equation} \lambda_{10} = 0, \; \lambda_{12} = 0, \; \lambda_{14} = 0, \; \lambda_{16} = 0. \end{equation}$

(3.5)

The set of four nonlinear equations (3.5) can be resolved to determine the four independent parameters. Our analysis reveals that the method exhibits a phase error on the order of $O(\psi^{18})$ , whereas the amplification error is $O(\psi^{9})$ . Consequently, the newly devised method demonstrates dissipative characteristics and lacks a periodicity interval.

The free parameters satisfying (3.5) in double precision are the following ^[15],

$a_3 = 0.870495922977052833,\:a_4 = -0.265579060733883584,$

$a_5 = -1.11694341482497459,\:d_{64} = -2.43624015403357971,$

and form the method N8ph18 that outperforms other methods in oscillatory problems.

Another noteworthy characteristic is P-stability ^[2,3]. In this context, it is essential to ensure $\sigma\equiv1$ , while also meeting the condition

$-2\leq(2-\psi^2w\cdot(I_s-\psi^2D)^{-1}\cdot( \textbf{1}+a))\leq2.$

Only implicit methods are capable of fulfilling these two criteria simultaneously.

4. Training the free parameters in a wide set of periodic problems

From the aforementioned set, our aim is to create a specific hybrid Numerov-style approach. The resultant technique should excel when applied to challenges exhibiting oscillatory solutions. Therefore, we opt to evaluate the following scenarios for testing purposes.

$z^{\prime \prime }(x) = -\mu ^{2}z(t),\;z(0) = 1,z^{\prime }(0) = 0,t\in \lbrack 0,10\pi],$

with the analytical solution $z(t) = \cos (\mu x)$ . This scenario was tested using five distinct values of $\mu$ : specifically, $\mu = 1, 3, 5, 7, 9.$ These numbers were chosen arbitrarily. Different choices will produce slightly different coefficients. Anyway, Differential Evolution is a metaheuristic method that produces random results in (hopefully) the direction of desired solutions. We may get thousands of results extremely close to each other. Consequently, we have five scenarios denoted as 1–5.

Our current project's primary framework is rooted in ^[22]. Upon selection of the independent parameters $a_3, a_4, a_5, d_{64}$ , we establish a method termed NEW8. Each scenario undergoes four runs with varying step counts. For each run we evaluated the maximum global error $ge_{\rm problem, steps}$ observed and we record the "accurate digits" i.e., $-log_{10}{(ge_{\rm problem, steps})}$ . The mean value $r$ , computed over these 20 problems, serves as an efficacy metric to be optimized. To facilitate this optimization, we employ the differential evolution technique ^[23].

DE operates through iterative steps, where each iteration, or generation $g$ , involves a "population" of individuals $\left(a_{3, i}^{(g)}, a_{4, i}^{(g)}, a_{5, i}^{(g)}, d_{64, i}^{(g)}\right)$ , $i = 1, 2, \cdots, N$ , with $N$ denoting the population size. The initial population $\left(a_{3, i}^{(0)}, a_{4, i}^{(0)}, a_{5, i}^{(0)}, d_{64, i}^{(0)}\right)$ , $i = 1, 2, \cdots, N$ is randomly generated in the first step. Furthermore, we designate $r$ as the fitness function, computed as the average precision over the 20 aforementioned runs. This fitness function is then assessed for each individual within the initial population. In every generation (iteration) $g$ , a three-step sequential process updates all individuals involved, consisting of Differentiation, Crossover, and Selection.

We utilized MATLAB ^[24] software DeMat ^[25] for the implementation of the aforementioned technique. Indeed, notable enhancements were achieved through selection:

$\begin{array}{ll} a_3 = 0.9442042052877105, & a_4 = 0.4611624530665672, \\ a_5 = -0.8575664014828354, & d_{64} = 12.56127525577038 . \end{array}$

The coefficients of the new method in matrix forms are given below, which are suitable for double precision computations.

$D = \left( \begin{array}{cccccccc} 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \frac{13073231}{765816835} & \frac{1162425931}{1290448873} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \frac{15504301}{303446304} & \frac{204546529}{691503620} & -\frac{5468561}{548112870} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ -\frac{46437667}{980424298} & -\frac{95091815}{1054858556} & \frac{13784899}{946911356} & -\frac{1290636}{998791667} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ -\frac{2384643161}{951946033} & -\frac{5551854734}{301857693} & -\frac{862090392}{293777917} & \frac{897911057}{71482476} & \frac{10304258074}{853918619} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \frac{276746015}{1037399899} & \frac{1131050235}{688407688} & \frac{186740362}{1030099325} & -\frac{1139314213}{1212843869} & -\frac{1500147825}{1231327489} & \frac{6071398}{1089814211} & 0 & 0 \\ -\frac{34899406663}{1129559599} & -\frac{291110149698}{1237155877} & -\frac{44963114191}{1183071678} & \frac{62726461355}{397241959} & \frac{142749796241}{969555741} & \frac{123970163}{1671884409} & -\frac{1993137}{584124064} & 0 \\ \end{array} \right),\nonumber$

$w = \left[ \begin{array}{cccccccc} -\frac{1341579}{392312827} & \frac{461160043}{1084958442} & 0 & \frac{306071289}{1258074655} & \frac{306071289}{1258074655} & \frac{42607879}{894937316} & \frac{42607879}{894937316} & -\frac{1341579}{392312827} \end{array} \right],\nonumber$

and

$a = \left[ \begin{array}{cccccccc} -1 & 0 & \frac{198781151}{210527712} & \frac{43361502}{94026523} & -\frac{43361502}{94026523} & \frac{96673439}{112729975} & -\frac{96673439}{112729975} & 1 \end{array} \right] ^T. \nonumber$

With this approach, we achieved a value of approximately $r\approx9.24$ , which demonstrates remarkable performance. In fact, numerous methods yielding $r > 9.1$ were obtained, indicating the presence of a narrow range of parameter combinations $a_3, a_4, a_5, d_{64}$ where $r$ reaches elevated levels. It is noteworthy that in the current configuration, the amplification differs from unity ( $\sigma\neq1$ ), and the phase lag is on the order of $O(v^8)$ , implying $\rho = O(v^8)$ , where $\rho_8\neq0$ . Moreover, no specific property is satisfied under these conditions.

In we present the results for the new method and the method N8ph18 presented in ^[15] that was especially formed for addressing oscillatory problems. For this latter method we observe a performance $\rho\approx7.82$ which is much smaller.

Table 4. Training phase. Accurate digits delivered after using various steps by NEW

$8$ and N

$8$ ph18 in the interval

$[0, 10\pi]$ .

Problem	Steps	NEW8	N8ph18
$1$	$20$	$7.5$	$6.6$
	$40$	$11.2$	$9.4$
	$60$	$12.3$	$11.0$
	$80$	$13.3$	$12.1$
$2$	$50$	$6.0$	$5.4$
	$100$	$10.1$	$8.2$
	$150$	$11.2$	$9.8$
	$200$	$12.0$	$10.9$
$3$	$80$	$5.6$	$5.0$
	$130$	$8.2$	$7.0$
	$180$	$10.8$	$8.3$
	$230$	$12.0$	$9.2$
$4$	$100$	$4.7$	$4.4$
	$150$	$7.0$	$6.0$
	$200$	$8.6$	$7.2$
	$250$	$11.0$	$8.1$
$5$	$150$	$5.5$	$4.9$
	$225$	$7.7$	$6.6$
	$300$	$9.6$	$7.7$
	$375$	$10.3$	$8.6$

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

5. Numerical results

The NEW8 method was designed to excel following multiple iterations on model scenarios. In the assessments outlined in Table 4, it was anticipated to outperform alternative methods for the specified intervals and step counts.

Hence, we aim to subject NEW8 to a distinct array of challenges, encompassing varying intervals and step counts. To this end, we re-evaluate problems 1–5 over an extended interval $[0, 20\pi]$ . These problems are now labeled as $1^{\prime}, 2^{\prime}, \cdots, 5^{\prime}$ . Additionally, we introduce two additional nonlinear problems and a wave equation to broaden the scope of evaluation. Specifically, we consider:

5.1. The inhomogeneous problem

$z^{\prime \prime }(t) = -100z(t)+99\sin t,\;z(0) = 1,z^{\prime }(0) = 11,t\in \lbrack0,20\pi ],$

with the theoretical solution $z(t) = \cos (10t)+\sin (10t)+\sin t$ .

5.2. The Duffing equation

Next, we choose the equation

$\begin{eqnarray*} z^{\prime \prime }(t) & = &\frac{1}{500}\cdot \cos \left( 1.01t\right) -z(t)-z(t)^{3}, \\ z(0) & = &0.2004267280699011,z^{\prime }\left( 0\right) = 0, \end{eqnarray*}$

with an approximate analytical solution given in ^[16],

$\begin{equation*} z(t)\approx \left\{ \begin{array}{l} 6\cdot 10^{-16}\cos (11.11t)+4.609\cdot 10^{-13}\cos (9.09t) \\ +3.743495\cdot 10^{-10}\cos (7.07t)+3.040149839\cdot 10^{-7}\cos (5.05t) \\ +2.469461432611\cdot 10^{-4}\cos (3.03t)+0.2001794775368452\cos (1.01t) \end{array} \right\}. \end{equation*}$

5.3. Wave equation

Finally, we consider the linearized wave equation, which is a rather large-scale problem ^[16],

$\begin{eqnarray*} \frac{\vartheta ^2u}{\vartheta t^2} & = &4\frac{\vartheta ^2u}{\vartheta x^2} +\sin t\cdot \cos \left( \frac{\pi x}b\right) ,\ 0\leq x\leq b = 100,\ t\in [0,20\pi ], \\ \frac{\vartheta u}{\vartheta x}\left( t,0\right) & = &\frac{\vartheta u}{ \vartheta x}\left( t,b\right) = 0, \\ u\left( 0,x\right) &\equiv &0,\ \frac{\vartheta u}{\vartheta t}\left( 0,x\right) = \frac{b^2}{4\pi ^2-b^2}\cos \frac{\pi x}b, \end{eqnarray*}$

with the theoretical solution

$\begin{equation} u\left( t,x\right) = \frac{b^2}{4\pi ^2-b^2}\cdot \sin t\cdot \cos \frac{\pi x }b. \end{equation}$

(5.1)

We discretize $\frac{\vartheta ^2u}{\vartheta x^2}$ using fourth-order symmetric differences for internal points, while boundary points utilize one-sided differences of the same order (while considering the information about $\frac{\vartheta u}{\vartheta x}$ at those points). This results in the following system:

$\begin{eqnarray*} \left[ \begin{array}{l} z_0^{\prime \prime } \\ z_1^{\prime \prime } \\ \\ \\ z_N^{\prime \prime } \end{array} \right] & = &\frac 4{\left( \Delta x\right) ^2}\left[ \begin{array}{cccccccc} -\frac{415}{72} & 8 & -3 & {\frac 89} & -\frac 18 & & & \\ \frac{257}{144} & -\frac{10}3 & \frac74 & -\frac29 & \frac 1{48} & & 0 & \\ -\frac 1{12} & \frac 43 & -\frac 52 & \stackrel{}{\frac 43} & -\frac 1{12} & & & \\ & & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \\ & & & -\frac 1{12} & {\frac 43} & -\frac 52 & \frac 43 & -\frac 1{12} \\ & 0 & & \frac 1{48} & -\frac 29 & \frac74 & -\frac{10}3 & \frac{257}{144} \\ & & & -\frac 18 & \frac89 & -3 & 8 & -\frac{415}{72} \end{array} \right] \cdot \left[ \begin{array}{c} z_0 \\ z_1 \\ \vdots \\ \\ z_N \end{array} \right] \\ &&+\sin t\cdot \left[ \begin{array}{c} \cos \left( \frac{0\cdot \Delta x}b\cdot \pi \right) \\ \stackrel{}{\cos \left( \frac{1\cdot \Delta x}b\cdot \pi \right) } \\ \vdots \\ \\ \cos \left( \frac{N\cdot \Delta x}b\cdot \pi \right) \end{array} \right] . \end{eqnarray*}$

Here, $z_0, z_1\cdots z_N$ may be understood as coordinates of $z\in\mathbb{R}^{N+1}$ , and not as time steps. Upon selecting $\Delta x = 5$ , we establish a system with constant coefficients and $N = 20$ . The outcomes for this scenario were primarily influenced by the errors arising from the semi-discretization process. As a consequence, an error of about $10^{-6.1}$ is added constantly to the theoretical solution (5.1). Thus, no method can have a true error smaller than this. But, as shown in Table 5, our new method even though it has limited accuracy, is faster (i.e., uses fewer time steps) than N8ph18.

Table 5. Numerical tests phase. Accurate digits delivered after using various steps by NEW

$8$ and N

$8$ ph18 in the interval

$[0, 20\pi]$ .

Problem	Steps	NEW8	N8ph18
$1^{\prime}$	$40$	$7.2$	$6.3$
	$80$	$10.9$	$9.1$
	$120$	$12.0$	$10.7$
	$160$	$12.9$	$11.8$
$2^{\prime}$	$100$	$5.7$	$5.1$
	$200$	$9.8$	$7.9$
	$300$	$10.9$	$9.5$
	$400$	$11.7$	$10.6$
$3^{\prime}$	$160$	$5.2$	$4.7$
	$260$	$7.9$	$6.7$
	$360$	$10.5$	$8.0$
	$460$	$12.0$	$8.9$
$4^{\prime}$	$200$	$4.4$	$4.1$
	$300$	$6.7$	$5.7$
	$400$	$8.3$	$6.9$
	$500$	$10.7$	$7.8$
$5^{\prime}$	$300$	$5.2$	$4.6$
	$450$	$7.4$	$6.2$
	$600$	$9.3$	$7.4$
	$750$	$10.0$	$8.3$
$6$	$240$	$2.9$	$3.0$
	$480$	$7.0$	$5.9$
	$720$	$10.1$	$7.5$
	$960$	$10.1$	$8.6$
$7$	$100$	$4.8$	$4.9$
	$200$	$7.7$	$7.3$
	$300$	$9.3$	$8.7$
	$400$	$10.4$	$9.7$
$8$	$60$	$6.0$	$5.0$
	$70$	$6.1$	$5.4$
	$80$	$6.1$	$5.8$
	$90$	$6.1$	$5.9$

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

We execute these $8$ scenarios with varying step counts and present the outcomes in Table 5. Notably, we also incorporate results obtained using the N8ph18 method. For economy and ease of reading the results, only the best methods of eighth order were tested on oscillatory problems. i.e., NEW8 and N8ph18. N8ph18 has already proven to outperform other 8th order methods ^[15,16]. It becomes evident from the table that NEW8 significantly outperforms all other methods documented in the literature. Overall, an improvement of nearly one decimal digit in accuracy was achieved.

The proposed method is constructed for application to second order Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs) with oscillatory solutions. However, this is a rather wide category of problems that is constantly under the interest of respected scholars. As seen from problem 8 (wave equation), our method may also apply to a certain kind of partial differential equations sharing periodic solutions after proper transformation to system of ODEs.

6. Conclusions

The key aspects of our investigation were as follows:

● We explored a family of eighth-order hybrid two-step techniques characterized by minimal stage counts, with a notable innovation being the proposal of a methodology for selecting appropriate independent parameters.

● The parameters of the novel technique were determined following extensive evaluation of their performance across a diverse array of periodic scenarios.

● Optimal parameter selection was achieved through the application of the differential evolution approach. Across a broad spectrum of challenges featuring oscillatory solutions, the devised approach demonstrated significant superiority over methods belonging to both similar and disparate families.

● The method we introduced is finely calibrated for scenarios with periodic solutions, particularly those featuring substantial linear components.

Author contributions

Both authors of this article have been contributed equally. Both authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript for publication.

Use of AI tools declaration

The authors declare that no Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools were used in the creation of this article.

Conflict of interest

This work does not have any conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	R. K. Ahuja, A. Kumar, K. C. Jha, J. B. Orlin, Exact and heuristic algorithms for the weapon-target assignment problem, Oper. Res., 55 (2007), 1136–1146. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1070.0440 doi: 10.1287/opre.1070.0440
[2]	W. Wei, R. Yang, H. Gu, W. Zhao, C. Chen, S. Wan, Multi-objective optimization for resource allocation in vehicular cloud computing networks, IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., 23 (2021), 25536–25545. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2021.3091321 doi: 10.1109/TITS.2021.3091321
[3]	X. Hao, N. Yao, L. Wang, J. Wang, Joint resource allocation algorithm based on multi-objective optimization for wireless sensor networks, Appl. Soft Comput., 94 (2020), 106470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106470 doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106470
[4]	O. A. Ogbolumani, N. I. Nwulu, Multi-objective optimisation of constrained food-energy-water-nexus systems for sustainable resource allocation, Sustainable Energy Technol. Assess., 44 (2021), 100967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2020.100967 doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2020.100967
[5]	S. P. Lloyd, H. S. Witsenhausen, Weapons allocation is np-complete, in 1986 Summer Computer Simulation Conference, (1986), 1054–1058.
[6]	J. Li, B. Xin, P. M. Pardalos, J. Chen, Solving bi-objective uncertain stochastic resource allocation problems by the CVaR-based risk measure and decomposition-based multi-objective evolutionary algorithms, Ann. Oper. Res., 296 (2021), 639–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03435-4 doi: 10.1007/s10479-019-03435-4
[7]	P. A. Hosein, M. Athans, Preferential Defense Strategies, 1990.
[8]	B. Xin, J. Chen, J. Zhang, L. Dou, Z. Peng, Efficient decision makings for dynamic weapon-target assignment by virtual permutation and tabu search heuristics, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cyber. C, 40 (2010), 649–662. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCC.2010.2049261 doi: 10.1109/TSMCC.2010.2049261
[9]	X. Shi, S. Zou, S. Song, R. Guo, A multi-objective sparse evolutionary framework for large-scale weapon target assignment based on a reward strategy, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., 40 (2021), 10043–10061. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-202679 doi: 10.3233/JIFS-202679
[10]	O. Karasakal, Air defense missile-target allocation models for a naval task group, Comput. Oper. Res., 35 (2008), 1759–1770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2006.09.011 doi: 10.1016/j.cor.2006.09.011
[11]	A. G. Kline, D. K. Ahner, B. J. Lunday, Real-time heuristic algorithms for the static weapon target assignment problem, J. Heuristics, 25 (2019), 377–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10732-018-9401-1 doi: 10.1007/s10732-018-9401-1
[12]	A. G. Kline, D. K. Ahner, B. J. Lunday, A heuristic and metaheuristic approach to the static weapon target assignment problem, J. Global Optim., 78 (2020), 791–812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10898-020-00938-4 doi: 10.1007/s10898-020-00938-4
[13]	G. denBroeder Jr, R. Ellison, L. Emerling, On optimum target assignments, Oper. Res., 7 (1959), 322–326. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.7.3.322 doi: 10.1287/opre.7.3.322
[14]	Z. J. Lee, C. Y. Lee, S. F. Su, An immunity-based ant colony optimization algorithm for solving weapon–target assignment problem, Appl. Soft Comput., 2 (2002), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1568-4946(02)00027-3 doi: 10.1016/S1568-4946(02)00027-3
[15]	C. M. Lai, T. H. Wu, Simplified swarm optimization with initialization scheme for dynamic weapon–target assignment problem, Appl. Soft Comput., 82 (2019), 105542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105542 doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105542
[16]	Z. J. Lee, S. F. Su, C. Y. Lee, Efficiently solving general weapon-target assignment problem by genetic algorithms with greedy eugenics, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cyber. B, 33 (2003), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCB.2003.808174 doi: 10.1109/TSMCB.2003.808174
[17]	T. Chang, D. Kong, N. Hao, K. Xu, G. Yang, Solving the dynamic weapon target assignment problem by an improved artificial bee colony algorithm with heuristic factor initialization, Appl. Soft Comput., 70 (2018), 845–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.06.014 doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2018.06.014
[18]	L. Juan, C. Jie, X. Bin, Efficiently solving multi-objective dynamic weapon-target assignment problems by NSGA-II, in 2015 34th Chinese Control Conference (CCC), (2015), 2556–2561. https://doi.org/10.1109/ChiCC.2015.7260033
[19]	J. Li, J. Chen, B. Xin, L. Dou, Solving multi-objective multi-stage weapon target assignment problem via adaptive NSGA-II and adaptive MOEA/D: A comparison study, in 2015 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), (2015), 3132–3139. https://doi.org/10.1109/CEC.2015.7257280
[20]	K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, T. Meyarivan, A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 6 (2002), 182–197. https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.996017 doi: 10.1109/4235.996017
[21]	Q. Zhang, H. Li, MOEA/D: A multiobjective evolutionary algorithm based on decomposition, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 11 (2007), 712–731. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2007.892759 doi: 10.1109/TEVC.2007.892759
[22]	N. Srinivas, K. Deb, Muiltiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms, Evol. Comput., 2 (1994), 221–248. https://doi.org/10.1162/evco.1994.2.3.221 doi: 10.1162/evco.1994.2.3.221
[23]	F. Sarro, F. Ferrucci, M. Harman, A. Manna, J. Ren, Adaptive multi-objective evolutionary algorithms for overtime planning in software projects, IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 43 (2017), 898–917. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2017.2650914 doi: 10.1109/TSE.2017.2650914
[24]	P. Arumugam, E. Amankwah, A. Walker, C. Gerada, Design optimization of a short-term duty electrical machine for extreme environment, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 64 (2017), 9784–9794. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2017.2711555 doi: 10.1109/TIE.2017.2711555
[25]	J. Zhou, J. Sun, X. Zhou, T. Wei, M. Chen, S. Hu, et al., Resource management for improving soft-error and lifetime reliability of real-time mpsocs, IEEE Trans. Comput. Aided Design Integr. Circuits Syst., 38 (2019), 2215–2228. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCAD.2018.2883993 doi: 10.1109/TCAD.2018.2883993
[26]	X. Zhang, Y. Tian, R. Cheng, Y. Jin, An efficient approach to nondominated sorting for evolutionary multiobjective optimization, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 19 (2014), 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2014.2308305 doi: 10.1109/TEVC.2014.2308305
[27]	J. Chen, B. Xin, Z. Peng, L. Dou, J. Zhang, Evolutionary decision-makings for the dynamic weapon-target assignment problem, Sci. China Ser. F Inf. Sci., 52 (2009), 2006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-009-0190-x doi: 10.1007/s11432-009-0190-x
[28]	Y. Wang, B. Xin, J. Chen, An adaptive memetic algorithm for the joint allocation of heterogeneous stochastic resources, IEEE Trans. Cybern., 52 (2021), 11526–11538. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2021.3087363 doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2021.3087363
[29]	K. Deb, H. Jain, An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm using reference-point-based nondominated sorting approach, part i: Solving problems with box constraints, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 18 (2013), 577–601. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2013.2281535 doi: 10.1109/TEVC.2013.2281535
[30]	K. Li, R. Chen, G. Fu, X. Yao, Two-archive evolutionary algorithm for constrained multiobjective optimization, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 23 (2018), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2018.2855411 doi: 10.1109/TEVC.2018.2855411
[31]	H. Jain, K. Deb, An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm using reference-point based nondominated sorting approach, part ii: Handling constraints and extending to an adaptive approach, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 18 (2013), 602–622. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2013.2281534 doi: 10.1109/TEVC.2013.2281534
[32]	A. A. Ghanbari, H. Alaei, Meta-heuristic algorithms for resource management in crisis based on OWA approach, Appl. Intell., 51 (2021), 646–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-020-01808-y doi: 10.1007/s10489-020-01808-y
[33]	X. Wu, C. Chen, S. Ding, A modified moea/d algorithm for solving bi-objective multi-stage weapon-target assignment problem, IEEE Access, 9 (2021), 71832–71848. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3079152 doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3079152
[34]	C. A. C. Coello, N. C. Cortés, Solving multiobjective optimization problems using an artificial immune system, Genet. Program. Evol. Mach., 6 (2005), 163–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10710-005-6164-x doi: 10.1007/s10710-005-6164-x
[35]	H. Ishibuchi, H. Masuda, Y. Nojima, Sensitivity of performance evaluation results by inverted generational distance to reference points, in 2016 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), (2016), 1107–1114. https://doi.org/10.1109/CEC.2016.7743912
[36]	E. Zitzler, L. Thiele, Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: A comparative case study and the strength pareto approach, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 3 (1999), 257–271. https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.797969 doi: 10.1109/4235.797969
[37]	K. Deb, S. Jain, Running performance metrics for evolutionary multi-objective optimization, in Proceedings of the Fourth Asia-Pacific Conference on Simulated Evolution and Learning (SEAL'02), (Singapore), (2002), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1350-4789(02)80143-X
[38]	M. Srinivas, L. M. Patnaik, Adaptive probabilities of crossover and mutation in genetic algorithms, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern., 24 (1994), 656–667. https://doi.org/10.1109/21.286385 doi: 10.1109/21.286385
[39]	W. Xu, C. Chen, S. Ding, P. M. Pardalos, A bi-objective dynamic collaborative task assignment under uncertainty using modified MOEA/D with heuristic initialization, Expert Syst. Appl., 140 (2020), 112844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.112844 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2019.112844
[40]	I. Voutchkov, A. Keane, A. Bhaskar, T. M. Olsen, Weld sequence optimization: The use of surrogate models for solving sequential combinatorial problems, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 194 (2005), 3535–3551. https://doi.org/10.1155/IMRN.2005.3551 doi: 10.1155/IMRN.2005.3551
[41]	W. Luo, J. Lü, K. Liu, L. Chen, Learning-based policy optimization for adversarial missile-target assignment, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst., 52 (2021), 4426–4437. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2021.3096997 doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2021.3096997

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

1.
沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院沈阳 110142

Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering

3.9

Metrics

Article views(1813) PDF downloads(122) Cited by(1)

Preview PDF

Download XML

Export Citation

Article outline

Show full outline

Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering

A multi-objective optimization framework with rule-based initialization for multi-stage missile target allocation

Related Papers:

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Order conditions for hybrid Numerov-type methods

3. Phase-lag and amplification errors

4. Training the free parameters in a wide set of periodic problems

5. Numerical results

5.1. The inhomogeneous problem

5.2. The Duffing equation

5.3. Wave equation

6. Conclusions

Author contributions

Use of AI tools declaration

Conflict of interest

References

Reader Comments

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

Metrics

Figures and Tables

Other Articles By Authors

Catalog

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Order conditions for hybrid Numerov-type methods

3. Phase-lag and amplification errors

4. Training the free parameters in a wide set of periodic problems

5. Numerical results

5.1. The inhomogeneous problem

5.2. The Duffing equation

5.3. Wave equation

6. Conclusions

Author contributions

Use of AI tools declaration

Conflict of interest

References

Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering

A multi-objective optimization framework with rule-based initialization for multi-stage missile target allocation

Related Papers:

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Order conditions for hybrid Numerov-type methods

3. Phase-lag and amplification errors

4. Training the free parameters in a wide set of periodic problems

5. Numerical results

5.1. The inhomogeneous problem

5.2. The Duffing equation

5.3. Wave equation

6. Conclusions

Author contributions

Use of AI tools declaration

Conflict of interest

References

Reader Comments

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

Metrics

Figures and Tables

Other Articles By Authors

Related pages

Tools

Export File

Citation

Format

Content

Catalog

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Order conditions for hybrid Numerov-type methods

3. Phase-lag and amplification errors

4. Training the free parameters in a wide set of periodic problems

5. Numerical results

5.1. The inhomogeneous problem

5.2. The Duffing equation

5.3. Wave equation

6. Conclusions

Author contributions

Use of AI tools declaration

Conflict of interest

References