Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society
Volume 2015 (2015), Article ID 740721, 11 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/740721

Research Article

An Alternate Iterative Differential Evolution Algorithm for Parameter Identification of Chaotic Systems

Wanli Xiang,1,2 Xuelei Meng,² and Meiqing An²

¹Institute of Systems Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China
²School of Traffic & Transportation, Lanzhou Jiaotong University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730070, China

Received 16 April 2015; Accepted 4 August 2015

Academic Editor: Daniele Fournier-Prunaret

Copyright © 2015 Wanli Xiang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

Parameter estimation of chaotic systems plays a key role for control and synchronization of chaotic systems. At first, the parameter estimation of chaotic systems is mathematically formulated as a global continuous optimization problem. Then through integrating two differential mutation strategies, an improved greedy selection mechanism and a population diversity balance scheme, an alternate iterative differential algorithm, called AIDE, is presented to solve the problem in this paper. Subsequently, experiments are tested on a set of cases of parameter estimation of chaotic systems and the results show that AIDE is better than or at least equal to DE/rand/1/bin, DE/best/1/bin, and other four well-known algorithms in all cases.

1. Introduction

In 1963, Lorenz first found the classical chaotic attractor during the process of simulating the change of atmosphere through a three-dimensional autonomous system [1]. After that, the chaos theory is studied in detail by many researchers. In particular, control and synchronization of chaotic systems have a promising prospect in various fields like information science, medicine, biology, engineering, and so on. However, the chaotic systems to be controlled usually have some unknown parameters. Thus, the parameter estimation problem becomes the first key issue for solving the control and synchronization of chaotic systems.

Recently, numerous researchers had given much attention to the parameter estimation of chaotic systems [2–18]. In particular, great achievements over the parameter estimation of chaotic systems have been obtained by intelligent algorithms recently. For example, Dai et al. [19] transformed the problem of parameter estimation of chaotic systems into a global optimization problem through designing a suitable objective function and solved the optimization problem using genetic algorithm. Likewise, Chang [3] employed the differential evolution (DE) algorithm to estimate the unknown parameters of Rossler’s chaotic system. Next, Chang [4] proposed an improved differential evolution algorithm to estimate the unknown parameters of Chen and Lü systems. He et al. [16] employed particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm for solving the problem of parameter estimation of Lorenz system and found that PSO is better than genetic algorithm (GA). Gao and Tong [20] also proposed an improved particle swarm optimization algorithm to effectively estimate the unknown parameters of Lorenz system and Lorenz system with noise. Meanwhile, a novel chaotic ant swarm (CAS for short) algorithm was developed to estimate the unknown parameters of Logistic and Lorenz systems by Li et al. [5]. Later, Chang et al. [6] introduced an evolutionary programming (EP) algorithm to solve the problem of parameter estimation of the unified chaotic systems including Lorenz, Lü, and Chen systems. Furthermore, some problems of parameter estimation of chaotic systems with time delay or other characteristics were also solved by some intelligent optimization algorithms [7–9]. In order to increasingly improve the accuracy of parameter estimation of chaotic systems, there are still some researchers who have proposed some improved PSO [10, 11], improved DE [2], and hybrid evolutionary algorithms [12–14, 21] to identify the unknown parameters of chaotic systems. In particular, Wang et al. [14] skillfully hybridize Nelder-Mead Simplex Search (NM for short) and differential evolution (DE) to propose a hybrid algorithm, called NMDE. NMDE was successfully used to identify the unknown parameters of chaotic systems and obtained a better convergence performance.

In order to further improve the accuracy of the parameter estimation of chaotic systems, inspired by the existence of a few big evolution eras and small evolution eras in nature, we propose an alternate iterative differential evolution algorithm, in which two mutation strategies with different search abilities (exploration and exploitation) are employed to imitate the evolutionary behaviour of big evolution era and small evolution era, respectively.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the problem description over parameter estimation is described. In Section 3, the traditional differential evolution algorithm is briefly described. Subsequently, an alternate iterative differential evolution, called AIDE, is presented in detail in Section 4. Nextly, comprehensive experiments are conducted in Section 5 to validate the performance of AIDE. Finally, a conclusion is drawn in Section 6.

2. Problem Description

In this paper, the following -dimensional chaotic system is considered:

where represents the state vector of chaotic systems, is an initial state, namely, the start point of evolution of chaotic systems, is the real parameters values of chaotic systems, and is the number of the parameters [14, 16, 21, 22].

When estimating the unknown parameters of chaotic systems, often suppose that the structure of the systems is known in advance [12] and further suppose that all states of the systems can be measured. Thus, the estimated system can be described as follows:

where denotes a state vector of the estimated system and is a parameter vector of the estimated system.

In this way, the problem of parameter estimation of chaotic systems is to find a set of suitable parameters of and make them very close to real values of . The corresponding objective function is to minimize the error between the state vector of the estimated system and the state vector of the original system. Accordingly, the problem can be converted into an optimization problem. Generally, its objective can be described by (3). The specific principle of parameter estimation of chaotic systems is shown in Figure 1:

where represents the length of the sampled data for parameters estimation, and denote the state vector of the original system and the estimated system at time , respectively, and represents the 2-norm or the Euclidean norm.

Figure 1: The principle of parameters estimation of chaotic systems.

3. Canonical Differential Evolution

In 1995, Storn and Price [23, 24] first proposed the differential evolution (DE) algorithm, which is simple yet powerful population-based and direct search algorithm. According to the mutation strategies and the crossover operators (bin and exp) of DE [24], it is very flexible and can be formed into many variants. In order to classify the different variants, the notation DE/// was introduced by Storn and Price [24]. Among a variety of variants, DE/best/1/bin is one of the most popular variants and its exploitation ability is relatively good. To some extent, it may speed up the convergence speed of DE/best/1/bin. Like other population-based metaheuristics, DE also first randomly produces an initial population, which is composed of -dimensional vector, so-called individuals, which encode the candidate solutions; that is, . Thereafter, DE/best/1/bin enters a loop of evolutionary operations: mutation, crossover, and selection.

3.1. Mutation

For each target vector , a mutant vector is generated according to the following equation:

where , is the index of the best individual with the best fitness value, are mutually different random integer numbers and they are also different from current index , and the scale factor is a real constant in the range of and it is used to control the amplification of the differential variation [24].

3.2. Crossover

At this phase, DE/best/1/bin employs a binomial crossover operator to generate a trial vector according to the following equation:

where , , is a random real number between , and is a randomly chosen index to make sure that the trial vector gets at least one parameter from the mutant vector . The crossover rate is a predefined constant within the range , which controls the fraction of parameter values copied from mutant vector [24].

3.3. Selection

After crossover operation, the trial vector is compared to the target vector using the greedy selection mechanism. To be specific, the selection process can be described by the following equation:

where denotes the objective of a solution and represents a parent vector used to replace the target vector in the next generation.

4. Alternate Iterative Differential Evolution

4.1. Motivation

In view of pseudorandomness and sensitivity to initial state values of chaotic systems, all these chaotic behaviours may result in the objective function shown in (3) having complex landscape, which is the biggest challenge for parameter identification. Hence, better and robust evolutionary algorithm is needed to solve it.

In order to balance the exploration and exploitation ability of DE, two different mutation strategies with different searching abilities are employed in AIDE. Inspired by the existence of a few big evolution eras and small evolution eras in nature, together with the diversity of mutation strategy of DE, we use two mutation strategies with different searching abilities to simulate evolutionary behaviour of big evolution era and small evolution era, respectively. In other words, DE/best/1/bin with better exploitation ability is used to simulate the evolution behavior of big evolution era. Inspired by PSO, we presented a new mutation strategy, called DE/pbest/1/bin, where pbest represents its own previous best individual for each target individual . In this way, the exploration ability of DE/pbest/1/bin may be better than that of DE/best/1/bin. For each target vector , its own previous best individual instead of the global best one is used to guide the population evolution in DE/pbest/1/bin, which partially prevents population from rapidly clustering in the vicinity of the global best individual and avoids evolution stagnation. DE/pbest/1/bin is employed to simulate evolutionary behaviour of the small evolution era. Based on the analysis mentioned above, an alternate iterative differential evolution is presented to identify the unknown parameter of chaotic systems.

4.2. Population Initialization Based on Opposition-Based Learning

In order to further improve the performance of evolutionary algorithm, an opposition-based learning (OBL) technique proposed by Rahnamayan et al. [25, 26] is used to initialize a population. The specific procedure is given as the following steps.

Step 1. Randomly produce an initial population of individuals.

Step 2. Generate the opposite-population of opposite individuals according to OBL.

Step 3. Select fittest individuals from as initial population.

4.3. Improved Greedy Selection Mechanism

Inspired by harmony search (HS) algorithm [27, 28], the selection mechanism of standard DE is changed according to the following criteria:

(i)In the canonical differential evolution, the greedy selection operation is carried out until the corresponding trial vector for each target vector is generated. In AIDE, the greedy selection operation is immediately conducted between the trial vector and the target vector when some trial vector is generated. In this way, the global best individual or the personal best individual (the previous best individual for each target vector) may be updated more rapidly than ever; namely, their new information helps to better guide the population to evolve towards better solutions.(ii)Different from the canonical differential evolution, in AIDE, the new generated trial vector is first compared with the target vector ; if individual is not inferior to individual , then will replace , or else, the worst individual of current population is substituted with directly, which is taking a cue from the greedy selection scheme of HS. It should be noted that a greedy selection between new generated and is performed in HS. But here directly replaces in order to maintain a good population diversity.

In the presented AIDE algorithm, the improved greedy selection mechanism is employed.

4.4. Constraint Handling

When the th variable of the th individual violates the boundary constraints, the corresponding th component will be reset to a suitable value according to the following criterion:

4.5. Alternate Iterative Differential Evolution

According to the aforementioned analysis, two mutation strategies are employed in AIDE. One is DE/best/1, which is given in (4). Inspired by PSO, a new mutation strategy, called DE/pbest/1, is presented in AIDE. The mutation strategy DE/pbest/1 can be described as follows:

where is similar to that of PSO and denotes the index of personal best individual for each target vector and the other variables are the same as those of (4).

From (4), the first term of the equation is the global best individual, which means that the population evolves under the guidance of the global best individual and it owns extremely strong exploitation ability. The search equation is used to simulate the evolution behavior of big evolution era in nature. In big evolution era, species in nature evolve very rapidly from the low level to high level, from simplicity to complexity, and from barbarity to civilization.

From (8), the first term of the equation is the personal best individual of the corresponding target vector, which means that the population will be directed by the previous best one of each individual rather than the global best individual. Under such circumstance, the evolution speed of population slows down in contrast to the situation of guidance of (4). Equation (8) is used to simulate the evolution behaviour of the small evolution era in nature, which helps to further prevent the population from clustering around the global best individual. It should be noted that species in nature evolve slowly over a period of time due to the effects of environmental change, natural disaster, and so on.

As far as the time periods of the big evolution era and the small evolution era are concerned, two constant numbers, and , are introduced to denote them. Namely, the DE/pbest/1/bin is carried out times after the DE/best/1/bin is performed times; then the two procedures are run alternately. Generally, the value of is bigger than that of .

In order to further improve the diversity of AIDE, inspired by the scout bees operation of artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm proposed by Karaboga and Basturk [29], changed scout bees operation is introduced into AIDE. To be specific, if the global best individual is not further improved through a predetermined number of generations called , then the first top individuals are replaced by randomly generated new individuals in order to maintain the population diversity and avoid the stagnation of evolution.

According to the above improvements, the main procedure of presented hybrid algorithm AIDE can be summarized in Algorithm 1.

()    Initialize the population X using opposition-based learning

()    Let represent the population composed of the best one of each individual () in

   history

()    Set //Iterative variable

()    while    do

()       for   to   do

()           Choose the best individual from the current population, and let best represent its index

()           Generate two random integer numbers

()           if    then

()               Perform differential mutation according to (4)

()            Set

()        else

()            Perform differential mutation according to (8)

()            Set

()        end if

()        Do bound constraints handling according to (7)

()        Generate trial vector according to (5) and compute its objective value

()        if   is better than   then

()            Replace with immediately

()        else

()            Substitute the worst individual in current population with immediately and is the index of the worst

                    individual

()            if   is better than   then

()                 and

()            end if

()        end if

()        if    then

()            Set and ; //Big evolution

()        else

()            Set and ; //Small evolution

()        end if

()    end for

()    //Disaster mutation

()    if    then

()        Sort the population according to objective value order by ascent and replace the first individuals with

             randomly generated individuals

()        Set

()    end if

()    Record the best solution found so far

()    if  the best solution is updated  then

()        Set

()    else

()        Set

()    end if

()    Set

() end while

Algorithm 1: The procedure of AIDE.

5. Experimental Study and Discussion

5.1. Typical Systems and Parameter Settings

In this section, comprehensive experiments are conducted to verify the effectiveness of AIDE. As a typical chaotic system, Lorenz system is taken as an example. The Lorenz system is mathematically formulated as follows:

where , , and are the original parameters and the system displays a chaotic attractor as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: The chaotic attractor of Lorenz system.

During the process of parameter estimation for Lorenz system, the fourth order Runge-Kutta algorithm is employed to obtain state vector in our simulation, where the step size is set to 0.01 and the length of samples is selected as . At first, let Lorenz system evolve freely from a random initial state and choose any point as the initial state of system after a period of transient process. Next, successive state vectors of both the original system and the estimated system are used to calculate the objective as shown in (3). Last, the aim of minimizing the objective is to search a suitable set of parameters .

For a fair comparison, the searching ranges are set as follows: , , and , which are also used in [14, 16, 21, 22]. In addition, the maximum cycle number is taken as 100, and the population size is set as , , and when the number of unknown parameters is , , and , respectively, in the literature [14]. That is, the maximum number of function evaluations (maxFEs) is 2000 (), 4000 (), and 12000 () when the number of unknown parameters is , , and , respectively. That is, for fixed population size in AIDE, that is, , the is set as 50 (2000/40), 100 (4000/40), and 300 (12000/40) when the number of unknown parameters is , , and , respectively.

In order to further demonstrate the effectiveness of AIDE, it is first compared with DE/best/1/bin and DE/rand/1/bin. The population size is set to 40 for all cases of the three algorithms. The maximum cycle number of the three algorithms is the same as aforementioned. Some other common parameters settings of the three algorithms are also similar to each other; that is, and . What is more, in AIDE, the parameter is set to 10, the parameter is set to 1000, and the parameter is set to 500 by trial and error.

5.2. Comparison between AIDE, DE/best/1/bin, and DE/rand/1/bin

5.2.1. Simulation on One-Dimensional Parameter Estimation

First, experiments tested on three one-dimensional parameter estimation cases are conducted. That is, only one parameter among parameters , , and is unknown and needs to be identified at a time. In addition, each algorithm is run twenty times independently for each case, respectively. The statistical results obtained by AIDE, DE/best/1/bin, and DE/rand/1/bin for the three cases are listed in Table 1. Meanwhile, the evolution process of unknown parameters (, , and ) and average of objective function values are plotted in Figure 3.

Table 1: Statistical results of different approaches for one-dimensional parameter estimation.

Approaches
Index
Best
Mean
Worst

DE_rand

10.000000000000009
9.999999999999984
10.000000000001773

DE_best

10.000000000000000
10.000000000000000
10.000000000000000

0.000000000000000
0.000000000000000
0.000000000000000

AIDE

10.000000000000000
10.000000000000000
10.000000000000000

0.000000000000000
0.000000000000000
0.000000000000000

DE_rand

27.999999999999936
28.000000000005393
27.999999999965191

DE_best

28.000000000000000
28.000000000000000
28.000000000000000

0.000000000000000
0.000000000000000
0.000000000000000

AIDE

28.000000000000000
28.000000000000000
28.000000000000000

0.000000000000000
0.000000000000000
0.000000000000000

DE_rand

2.666666666666673
2.666666666666710
2.666666666666033

DE_best

2.666666666666667
2.666666666666667
2.666666666666667

0.000000000000000
0.000000000000000
0.000000000000000

AIDE

2.666666666666667
2.666666666666667
2.666666666666667

0.000000000000000
0.000000000000000
0.000000000000000

DE_rand stands for DE/rand/1/bin and DE_best means DE/best/1/bin.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Figure 3: The evolution process of Lorenz system with one unknown parameter.

From Table 1, it can be seen that DE/rand/1/bin is worse than both DE/best/1/bin and AIDE, which shows that the convergence speed of DE/rand/1/bin is slow. Furthermore, the objective values obtained by AIDE and DE/best/1/bin are all zero, which means that the estimated value of , , and identified by AIDE and DE/best/1/bin is exactly equal to the true value of the corresponding parameter, respectively. Nevertheless, the convergence speed of DE/best/1/bin is slower than that of AIDE, which can be found from Figure 3, which indicates that the combination of the two mutation strategies is more favourable to speed up the convergence of AIDE than DE/best/1/bin itself. That is, sometimes the mutation strategy DE/pbest/1/bin may work better than DE/best/1bin.

5.2.2. Simulation on Two-Dimensional Parameter Estimation

Second, Experimental study about three two-dimensional parameter estimation cases is carried out. At this time, two of the three parameters are unknown and need to be identified. The corresponding statistical results are listed in Tables 2–4, respectively. The corresponding evolution processes of both unknown parameters and objective values are illustrated in Figures 4–6, respectively.

Table 2: Statistical results of different approaches for two-dimensional parameter identification ( and are unknown).

Index
DE/rand/1/bin
DE/best/1/bin
AIDE

Best

9.999999999999080
10.000000000000000
10.000000000000000

28.000000000000142
28.000000000000000
28.000000000000000

0.000000000000000
0.000000000000000

Mean

9.999999999992522
9.999999999999996
10.000000000000000

28.000000000000107
28.000000000000000
28.000000000000000

0.000000000000000

Worst

9.999999999950955
9.999999999999954
10.000000000000000

28.000000000009916
28.000000000000011
28.000000000000000

0.000000000000000

Table 3: Statistical results of different approaches for two-dimensional parameter identification ( and are unknown).

Index
DE/rand/1/bin
DE/best/1/bin
AIDE

Best

10.000000000000011
10.000000000000000
10.000000000000000

2.666666666666698
2.666666666666667
2.666666666666667

0.000000000000000
0.000000000000000

Mean

9.999999999999748
10.000000000000011
10.000000000000000

2.666666666666668
2.666666666666665
2.666666666666667

0.000000000000000

Worst

10.000000000007114
10.000000000000023
10.000000000000000

2.666666666666092
2.666666666666663
2.666666666666667

0.000000000000000

Table 4: Statistical results of different approaches for two-dimensional parameter identification ( and are unknown).

Index
DE/rand/1/bin
DE/best/1/bin
AIDE

Best

27.999999999994451
28.000000000000000
28.000000000000000

2.666666666664585
2.666666666666667
2.666666666666667

0.000000000000000
0.000000000000000

Mean

28.000000000004341
28.000000000000000
28.000000000000000

2.666666666667481
2.666666666666666
2.666666666666667

0.000000000000000

Worst

28.000000000194063
28.000000000000000
28.000000000000000

2.666666666707930
2.666666666666666
2.666666666666667

0.000000000000000

Figure 4: The evolution process of Lorenz system when parameters and are unknown.

Figure 5: The evolution process of Lorenz system when parameters and are unknown.

Figure 6: The evolution process of Lorenz system when parameters and are unknown.

From Tables 2–4, it can be seen that high-quality solutions are obtained by AIDE and their values are all equal to the corresponding true values. Although the best results found by DE/best/1/bin are also equal to the true values, the worst results obtained by DE/best/1/bin are all worse than those of AIDE for the three cases, which shows that sometimes DE/best/1/bin may result in premature convergence and AIDE can achieve a good compromise between the exploration and the exploitation. In contrast, the performance of DE/rand/1/bin is the worst among the three methods. All these can also be confirmed from Figures 4–6, respectively.

5.2.3. Simulation on Three-Dimensional Parameter Estimation

In this section, three-dimensional parameter estimation of Lorenz system is considered. In the case, the three parameters , , and are all unknown and need to be identified. The results are shown in Table 5 in terms of best, mean, and worst of the results obtained in 20 independent runs by each algorithm. The evolution processes of unknown parameters and objective value are illustrated in Figure 7, respectively.

Table 5: Statistical results of different approaches for three-dimensional parameter identification (, , and are unknown).

Index
DE/rand/1/bin
DE/best/1/bin
AIDE

Best

10.000000000000000
10.000000000000000
10.000000000000000

28.000000000000000
28.000000000000000
28.000000000000000

2.666666666666667
2.666666666666667
2.666666666666667

0.000000000000000
0.000000000000000
0.000000000000000

Mean

10.000000000000000
9.999999999999996
10.000000000000000

28.000000000000000
28.000000000000000
28.000000000000000

2.666666666666666
2.666666666666666
2.666666666666667

0.000000000000000

Worst

10.000000000000007
9.999999999999941
10.000000000000000

27.999999999999996
28.000000000000014
28.000000000000000

2.666666666666665
2.666666666666674
2.666666666666667

0.000000000000000

Figure 7: The evolution process of Lorenz system when parameters , , and are unknown.

As shown in Table 5, all the results obtained by AIDE are still equal to the true values. AIDE is superior to both DE/rand/1/bin and DE/best/1/bin according to the mean value. Comparatively, DE/rand/1/bin is slightly better than DE/best/1/bin in terms of the mean and worst values. Namely, as parameter dimension increases, the performance of DE/best/1/bin is not consistently better than that of DE/rand/1/bin as before. This may be the reason that the guidance of the global best individual leads to the premature convergence of DE/best/1/bin. Instead, DE/rand/1/bin obtains a good convergence performance as the iterative generation increases. All in all, AIDE is more effective and robust than other two algorithms, which can also be seen from Figure 7. All these also demonstrate that the modifications of AIDE are effective for balancing the exploration and exploitation ability of it.

5.2.4. Simulation on Lorenz System with Noise

Subsequently, the three-dimensional parameter estimation of Lorenz system with noise is considered again. As shown in Figure 1, each system state vector () is added with white noise in the range of in the experiment. Then AIDE was independently executed 20 times and the statistical results are given in Table 6. The parameter settings of AIDE in the case are the same as the aforementioned in Section 5.1.

Table 6: Statistical results of AIDE for three-dimensional parameter identification of Lorenz system with noise.

Methods
Index
Best
Mean
Worst

AIDE

9.990801271058711
9.998131753034325
9.989687785636363

28.003818708942255
28.000608072179272
28.002414544105758

2.667512761713986
2.666799322681526
2.667073063185854

0.0077
0.0082
0.0085

From Table 6, it can also be observed that AIDE achieves good results when noise exists. In addition, the relative errors between the estimated values and the true values of parameters , , and are approximately equal to , , and , respectively, in terms of the mean values.

5.3. Comparison between GA, PSO, NMDE, and AIDE

In order to further validate the convergence performance of AIDE, it is compared with other well-known algorithms including genetic algorithm [19], particle swarm optimization [16], and NMDE [14] again.

In view of very good results obtained by NMDE, for convenience, three-dimensional parameter estimation is considered in this section. The parameter settings of AIDE are the same as the aforementioned. Namely, the population size is set to 120 and the maximum generation is set to 100 for GA, PSO, and NMDE, which is the same as those employed in the literatures [14, 16]. Thus, there are about 300 generations in AIDE when the population size is fixed to 40 for a fair comparison. Next, the comparison results are listed in Table 7, where the results of GA, PSO, and NMDE are directly taken from the literatures [14, 16] for the sake of reliability.

Table 7: Statistical results of different methods for three-dimensional parameter identification of Lorenz system.

Index
GA
PSO
NMDE
AIDE

Best

10.067167
9.995332
10.000003
10.000000000000000

27.922058
28.007146
28.000002
28.000000000000000

2.663426
2.667013
2.666667
2.666666666666667

4.310715
0.048645
0.000000
0.000000000000000

Mean

10.139783
10.018417
10.000009
10.000000000000000

27.742735
27.993390
28.999980
28.000000000000000

2.648585
2.666281
2.666666
2.666666666666667

943.762894
4.182781
0.000007
0.000000000000000

Worst

10.929003
10.608212
10.000223
10.000000000000000

26.127605
27.704424
27.999848
28.000000000000000

2.560249
2.657231
2.666660
2.666666666666667

6461.48006
39.406026
0.000033
0.000000000000000

Bold entities mean the best results.

From Table 7, it can be found that the best objective value obtained by NMDE is equal to that searched by AIDE, but the quality of best solutions (, , and ) obtained by NMDE is worse than that of solutions obtained by AIDE. In particular, the worst results obtained by NMDE are obviously inferior to those found by AIDE. However, NMDE is obviously superior to both GA and PSO. Therefore, AIDE is the best algorithm among the four approaches for parameter identification of chaotic systems.

6. Conclusion

Through designing an appropriate objective function, parameter identification of chaotic systems is mathematically formulated as a global multidimensional optimization problem. Then, an alternate iterative differential algorithm, AIDE for short, is presented to solve the global optimization problem. First, a new mutation strategy DE/pbest/1 is proposed in AIDE. Second, the new mutation strategy and DE/best/1 are run alternately in AIDE. Meanwhile, a greedy selection mechanism is improved and employed. Last, a mutation mechanism like scout bees operation of artificial bee colony algorithm is introduced in order to better keep the population diversity. When compared with two variants of DE, that is, DE/rand/1/bin and DE/best/1/bin, the experimental results show that AIDE is better than both DE/rand/1/bin and DE/best/1/bin, which means that AIDE is effective to achieve a compromise between the exploration and exploitation. Subsequently, a comparison between AIDE and other four famous metaheuristics is conducted. The comparison results demonstrate that AIDE outperforms GA, PSO, and NMDE. All these show that AIDE is an efficient and powerful tool for parameter identification of chaotic systems.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant nos. 61263027 and 61364026) and the Science and Technology Foundation of Lanzhou Jiaotong University (Grant no. ZC2014010) and the New Teacher Project of Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China (20126204120002) and the Natural Science Foundation of Gansu Province (Grant no. 148RJZA030).

References

J. H. Lü, G. R. Chen, and S. C. Zhang, “A unified chaotic system and its research,” Journal of the Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 123–129, 2003.

W.-H. Ho, J.-H. Chou, and C.-Y. Guo, “Parameter identification of chaotic systems using improved differential evolution algorithm,” Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 61, no. 1-2, pp. 29–41, 2010.

W.-D. Chang, “Parameter identification of Rossler's chaotic system by an evolutionary algorithm,” Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 1047–1053, 2006.

W.-D. Chang, “Parameter identification of Chen and Lü systems: a differential evolution approach,” Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1469–1476, 2007.

L. Li, Y. Yang, H. Peng, and X. Wang, “Parameters identification of chaotic systems via chaotic ant swarm,” Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 1204–1211, 2006.

J.-F. Chang, Y.-S. Yang, T.-L. Liao, and J.-J. Yan, “Parameter identification of chaotic systems using evolutionary programming approach,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 2074–2079, 2008.

Y. Tang and X. Guan, “Parameter estimation for time-delay chaotic system by particle swarm optimization,” Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 1391–1398, 2009.

Y. Tang and X. Guan, “Parameter estimation of chaotic system with time-delay: a differential evolution approach,” Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 3132–3139, 2009.

L. Yuan, Q. Yang, and C. Zeng, “Chaos detection and parameter identification in fractional-order chaotic systems with delay,” Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 73, no. 1-2, pp. 439–448, 2013.

H. Modares, A. Alfi, and M.-M. Fateh, “Parameter identification of chaotic dynamic systems through an improved particle swarm optimization,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 3714–3720, 2010.

J. Sun, J. Zhao, X. Wu, W. Fang, Y. Cai, and W. Xu, “Parameter estimation for chaotic systems with a drift particle swarm optimization method,” Physics Letters A, vol. 374, no. 28, pp. 2816–2822, 2010.

L. Wang and L.-P. Li, “An effective hybrid quantum-inspired evolutionary algorithm for parameter estimation of chaotic systems,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 1279–1285, 2010.

J.-P. Tien and T.-H. S. Li, “Hybrid Taguchi-chaos of multilevel immune and the artificial bee colony algorithm for parameter identification of chaotic systems,” Computers & Mathematics with Applications, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 1108–1119, 2012.

L. Wang, Y. Xu, and L. Li, “Parameter identification of chaotic systems by hybrid Nelder-Mead simplex search and differential evolution algorithm,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 3238–3245, 2011.

J. Lü, G. Chen, D. Cheng, and S. Celikovsky, “Bridge the gap between the Lorenz system and the Chen system,” International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 2917–2926, 2002.

Q. He, L. Wang, and B. Liu, “Parameter estimation for chaotic systems by particle swarm optimization,” Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 654–661, 2007.

J. Lü and G. Chen, “A new chaotic attractor coined,” International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 659–661, 2002.

Y. Yongguang and Z. Suochun, “Controlling uncertain Lü system using backstepping design,” Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 897–902, 2003.

D. Dai, X. K. Ma, F. C. Li, and Y. You, “An approach of parameter estimation for a chaotic system based on genetic algorithm,” Acta Physica Sinica, vol. 51, no. 11, pp. 2459–2462, 2002 (Chinese).

F. Gao and H.-Q. Tong, “Parameter estimation for chaotic system based on particle swarm optimization,” Acta Physica Sinica, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 577–582, 2006 (Chinese).

L. Wang and Y. Xu, “An effective hybrid biogeography-based optimization algorithm for parameter estimation of chaotic systems,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 15103–15109, 2011.

B. Peng, B. Liu, F.-Y. Zhang, and L. Wang, “Differential evolution algorithm-based parameter estimation for chaotic systems,” Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 2110–2118, 2009.

R. Storn and K. Price, “Differential evolution—a simple and efficient adaptive scheme for global opitmization,” Tech. Rep. TR-95-012, International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, Calif, USA, 1995.

R. Storn and K. Price, “Differential evolution—a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces,” Journal of Global Optimization, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 341–359, 1997.

S. Rahnamayan, Opposition-based differential evolution [Ph.D. thesis], University of Waterloo, 2007.

R. S. Rahnamayan, H. R. Tizhoosh, and M. M. A. Salama, “Opposition-based differential evolution,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 64–79, 2008.

Z. W. Geem, J. H. Kim, and G. V. Loganathan, “A new heuristic optimization algorithm: harmony search,” Simulation, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 60–68, 2001.

M. G. H. Omran and M. Mahdavi, “Global-best harmony search,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 198, no. 2, pp. 643–656, 2008.

D. Karaboga and B. Basturk, “A powerful and efficient algorithm for numerical function optimization: artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm,” Journal of Global Optimization, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 459–471, 2007.