Population-based methods in the optimization of stand management

In Finland, the growth and yield models for tree stands are simulation programs that consist of several sub-models. These models are often non-smooth and non-differentiable. Direct search methods such as the Hooke-Jeeves algorithm (HJ) are suitable tools for optimizing stand managemen...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Pukkala, Timo
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Finnish Society of Forest Science 2009-01-01
Series:Silva Fennica
Online Access:https://www.silvafennica.fi/article/211
id doaj-c1389f042a974f19ad334480a0531711
record_format Article
spelling doaj-c1389f042a974f19ad334480a05317112020-11-25T02:33:28ZengFinnish Society of Forest ScienceSilva Fennica2242-40752009-01-0143210.14214/sf.211Population-based methods in the optimization of stand managementPukkala, Timo In Finland, the growth and yield models for tree stands are simulation programs that consist of several sub-models. These models are often non-smooth and non-differentiable. Direct search methods such as the Hooke-Jeeves algorithm (HJ) are suitable tools for optimizing stand management with this kind of complicated models. This study tested a new class of direct search methods, namely population-based methods, in the optimization of stand management. The tested methods were differential evolution, particle swarm optimization, evolution strategy, and the Nelder-Mead method. All these methods operate with a population of solution vectors, which are recombined and mutated to obtain new candidate solutions. The management schedule of 719 stands was optimized with all population-based methods and with the HJ method. The population-based methods were competitive with the HJ method, producing 0.57% to 1.74% higher mean objective function values than HJ. On the average, differential evolution was the best method, followed by particle swarm optimization, evolution strategy, and Nelder-Mead method. However, differences between the methods were small, and each method was the best in several stands. HJ was alone the best method in 7% of stands, and a population based method in 3% (Nelder-Mead) to 29% (differential evolution) of stands. All five methods found the same solution in 18% of stands.https://www.silvafennica.fi/article/211
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Pukkala, Timo
spellingShingle Pukkala, Timo
Population-based methods in the optimization of stand management
Silva Fennica
author_facet Pukkala, Timo
author_sort Pukkala, Timo
title Population-based methods in the optimization of stand management
title_short Population-based methods in the optimization of stand management
title_full Population-based methods in the optimization of stand management
title_fullStr Population-based methods in the optimization of stand management
title_full_unstemmed Population-based methods in the optimization of stand management
title_sort population-based methods in the optimization of stand management
publisher Finnish Society of Forest Science
series Silva Fennica
issn 2242-4075
publishDate 2009-01-01
description In Finland, the growth and yield models for tree stands are simulation programs that consist of several sub-models. These models are often non-smooth and non-differentiable. Direct search methods such as the Hooke-Jeeves algorithm (HJ) are suitable tools for optimizing stand management with this kind of complicated models. This study tested a new class of direct search methods, namely population-based methods, in the optimization of stand management. The tested methods were differential evolution, particle swarm optimization, evolution strategy, and the Nelder-Mead method. All these methods operate with a population of solution vectors, which are recombined and mutated to obtain new candidate solutions. The management schedule of 719 stands was optimized with all population-based methods and with the HJ method. The population-based methods were competitive with the HJ method, producing 0.57% to 1.74% higher mean objective function values than HJ. On the average, differential evolution was the best method, followed by particle swarm optimization, evolution strategy, and Nelder-Mead method. However, differences between the methods were small, and each method was the best in several stands. HJ was alone the best method in 7% of stands, and a population based method in 3% (Nelder-Mead) to 29% (differential evolution) of stands. All five methods found the same solution in 18% of stands.
url https://www.silvafennica.fi/article/211
work_keys_str_mv AT pukkalatimo populationbasedmethodsintheoptimizationofstandmanagement
_version_ 1724813959897284608