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...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
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 |