Research Article  Open Access
Yongli Zhang, Jianguang Niu, Sanggyun Na, "A Novel Nonlinear Function Fitting Model Based on FOA and GRNN", Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2019, Article ID 2697317, 10 pages, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2697317
A Novel Nonlinear Function Fitting Model Based on FOA and GRNN
Abstract
The nonlinear function fitting is an essential research issue. At present, the main function fitting methods are statistical methods and artificial neural network, but statistical methods have many inherent strict limits in application, and the back propagation (BP) neural network used widely has too many optimized parameters. For the gaps and lacks of existing researches, the FOAGRNN was proposed and compared with the GRNN, GABP, PSOBP, and BP through three nonlinear functions from simplicity to complexity for verifying the accuracy and robustness of the FOAGRNN. The experiment results showed that the FOAGRNN had the best fitting precision and fastest convergence speed; meanwhile the predictions were stable and reliable in the Mexican Hat function and Rastrgrin function. In the most complex Griewank function, the prediction of FOAGRNN was becoming unstable and the model did not show better than GRNN model adopting equal step length searching method, but the performance of FOAGRNN is superior to that of GABP, PSOBP, and BP. The paper presents a new approach to optimize the parameter of GRNN and also provides a new nonlinear function fitting method, which has better fitting precision, faster calculation speed, more few adjusted parameters, and more powerful processing ability for small samples. The processing capacity of FOA for treating high complex nonlinear function needs to be further improved and developed in the future study.
1. Introduction
In various fields of science and technology, the relationship between different variables is usually described by the function. Some functional relations can be derived from classical theoretical analysis, which not only provides theoretical basis for further analysis and research, but also facilitates the solution of practical engineering problems. However, many engineering problems are difficult to directly derive the functional expression between variables, or even if the expression can be obtained, the formula is very complex, which is not conducive to further analysis and calculation. Due to the research needs, it is expected to obtain the functional relationship between these variables. At this time, the fitting method can be used to obtain the approximate functional expression between variables by combining the known experimental data with the mathematical method.
According to the fitting problem, the fitting methods are generally divided into linear fitting methods and nonlinear fitting methods. For the linear data fitting problem, linear fitting methods usually adopt a set of simple, linearly independent basis functions to approximate the experimental data. However, the linear fitting methods have many inherent strict limits in practical application; assume that independent variables are normal distribution, nonrelevance, and independent; function form relating to independent variables and dependent variable must be preexisting and linearity [1]. For the nonlinear data fitting problem, it is usually divided into two cases for processing. One way is to use variable substitution to turn it into a linear problem and then solve it. The other is the problem that cannot linearize (processing is more troublesome) and can use the method such as artificial neural network to achieve. The artificial neural network has strong mapping and generalization ability, which can selforganize, selfstudy, and fit the arbitrary nonlinear relationship between dependent variable and independent variables without accurate mathematical model [2, 3]. The back propagation (BP) neural network is one of most popular artificial neural networks, but the BP neural network needs a large number of data samples for training and also has too many optimized parameters.
Generalized regression neural network (GRNN) has excellent performance of antiinterference, good approximation ability, fast convergence speed, and the ability of autonomous learning. In addition, in the treatment of small sample or unstable data, the GRNN has a better effect [4, 5]. Currently, GRNN is widely used in engineering fields [6–10]. This study contributes to existing studies by applying GRNN for nonlinear function approximation and comparing with linear regression model and BP neural network to assess the strengths and weaknesses of GRNN.
Although the GRNN does not need preexisting function model, the SPREAD parameter of GRNN has significant influence on the prediction performance. Therefore, in order to select an appropriate SPREAD parameter, researchers have raised multiple evolutionary algorithms for optimizing neural network, such as genetic algorithm (GA) [11, 12], particle swarm optimization (PSO) [13, 14], tabu search algorithm (TSA) [15, 16], ant colony algorithm (ACA) [17, 18], etc.
However, traditional evolutionary algorithms have common disadvantages, such as complex program, difficulty to understand, slow convergence rate, etc., so the scholar Pan proposed the fruit fly optimization algorithm (FOA) in 2012 [19]. Currently, few studies have conducted FOA on the optimization of GRNN. Although FOAGRNN model was further designed by Yongli Zhang et al. in 2018, FOAGRNN was only directly applied to the research issue of technological innovation, not compared with other algorithms or models to verify the its advantages in the algorithm performance such as nonlinear fitting ability and predictive stability [20]. Therefore, this study is undertaken to assess various intelligent algorithms to test whether FOA is the accurate optimization algorithm with best fitting precision and fastest calculation speed, to fill the research gap.
This paper utilized the fruit fly optimization algorithm (FOA) to optimize the SPREAD parameter of GRNN and established the FOAGRNN model and then designed three nonlinear functions from simplicity to complexity, compared FOAGRNN with GRNN, GABP, PSOBP, and BP models in the same experimental conditions for verifying the accuracy and robustness of the FOAGRNN model.
The rest of this study is organized as follows. The principle of GRNN, FOA, GA, PSO, and BP are described in Section 2. The simulation experiments are given in Section 3. Finally, conclusions are drawn and future research is suggested in Section 4.
2. Generalized Regression Neural Network
2.1. The Basic Theory of GRNN
In 1991, American scholar Donald F. Specht proposed the generalized regression neural network (GRNN), which is a special form of radial basis function (RBF) neural network [21]. GRNN has strong nonlinear mapping ability and is suitable for solving various nonlinear problems. In addition, when the sample data is small, GRNN also has a better prediction effect. At present, GRNN has been widely applied in various fields, such as enterprise operation management, bioengineering, energy demand forecasting, structural analysis, and control decisionmaking system [5, 10, 22–24].
The network structure of GRNN is composed of input layer, pattern layer, summation layer, and output layer, as shown as Figure 1, wherein represents network input vector and represents network out vector.
The number of neurons in the input layer is equal to the dimension n of the input vector in the learning sample. Each neuron is a simple distribution unit, and these neurons directly pass input variables to the pattern layer.
The number of neurons in the pattern layer is the number n of learning samples, and each neuron corresponds to one learning sample. The transfer function of the i^{th} neuron in the model layer is as follows.
In formula (1), P_{i} is the output of the i^{th} neuron in the pattern layer, σ is the smoothing factor, and X_{i} is the learning sample corresponding to the i^{th} neuron.
The summation layer contains the summation unit in the denominator and the summation unit in the numerator. The summation unit in the denominator performs arithmetic summation on the outputs of all neurons in the pattern layer. The sum of connection weights between all neurons of pattern layer and a neuron in the summation layer are 1, and the transfer function is shown in formula (2).
The molecular summation unit is a weighted summation of the output of neurons in the pattern layer; the element j in the output sample Y_{i} is the connection weight between pattern layer neuron i and summation layer neuron j, as shown in formula (3).
The output layer Y is divided by the output of the numerator summation unit and the denominator summation unit in the summation layer, as shown in formula (4).
2.2. FOAGRNN Model
When using GRNN for modeling, as long as the training sample is determined, the corresponding network structure and the connection weight between neurons are also determined accordingly, so that the stability of GRNN is very good; its training process is actually the process of optimizing smooth parameter σ. By changing the parameter σ, the transfer function of the hidden layer is adjusted to obtain the best regression estimation result. If the value of parameter σ is not appropriate, GRNN cannot achieve the expected training effect. Because the simulation tool used in this paper is MATLAB, the parameter SPREAD is used to express the smooth parameter σ.
In order to obtain the ideal parameter SPREAD and make the prediction model have good generalization ability, fruit fly optimization (FOA) algorithm is adopted to optimize the smooth parameter SPREAD in GRNN model.
Fruit fly optimization algorithm (FOA) is a global optimization algorithm by simulating fruit fly foraging behavior. FOA has the advantages of simple structure, low computation complexity, and high execution efficiency, proposed by scholar Pan WenChao in 2012 [19]. The optimization process for searching the parameter SPREAD of GRNN model through FOA is shown in Figure 2.
The specific optimization steps of FOAGRNN are as follows.
Step 1. Randomly initialize fruit fly position, setting iteration number, and population size.
Step 2. Randomly set the direction and distance of each fruit fly.
Step 3. Calculate the distance between the fruit fly and the origin (= +) and the determination value of flavor concentration (S=1/D_{i}).
Step 4. Establish the fitness function. One flavor concentration determination value S represents one position of fruit fly, then it is regarded as one SPREAD parameter of GRNN, substituted into the fitness function to obtain the fitness of the position of fruit fly. In this study, the reciprocal of root mean square error (RMSE) between the predicted values and actual values is treated as the fitness function of fruit fly.
Step 5. Regenerate a new fruit fly population. The best fruit fly with highest fitness is pick out, then around the best fruit fly, the new fruit flies will be regenerated and born. The direction and distance of new fruit fly is adjusted based on the position of the best fruit fly of previous generation.
Step 6. Repeat Steps 3 to 5 and the fruit fly iteratively searches for the optimal parameter to determine whether the flavor concentration is better than the previous iteration.
Step 7. Judge whether to meet the requirements of the terminating condition, finally, obtaining the optimal parameter SPREAD and GRNN model.
2.3. Other Intelligent Algorithms
2.3.1. BP Neural Network
Back propagation (BP) neural network is a multilayer feed forward network proposed by Rumelhart and McCelland in 1986, and it is one of neural network modes applied widely. It can selflearn, selforganize, and fit any nonlinear function. During training process, the BP neural network takes minimum sum of squared errors as learning goal and continuously adjusts the weights and thresholds via steepest descent method to approach the desired output [25]. Due to learning rule is steepest descent method, the BP neural network easily falls into local optima, unable to obtain the global optimum [26].
2.3.2. Genetic Algorithm
Genetic algorithm (GA) is an evolutionary algorithm proposed by American professor Holland in 1962. It follows along with the biology inheritance and the evolutionary mechanism of “survival of the fittest” to search the global optimal solution. During optimum process, genetic algorithm firstly transforms the problem solutions into population individuals embodied by code and initializes population randomly, in which each individual represents one candidate solution. Then genetic algorithm calculates the fitness of each population individual, reserves superior individuals with high fitness, and eliminates inferior individuals with low fitness through selection, crossover, and mutation operations; evolution repeats until the best individual is searched, which is decoded to obtain the optimal solution [20, 26].
2.3.3. Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm
Particle swarm optimization (PSO) is an evolutionary computation technique based on swarm intelligence. It stems from the simulation of bird flock's looking for food and has been proposed by Kennedy and Eberhart in 1995. The PSO algorithm maps the solution space to the particle swarm, and each particle is characterized with fitness, position, and speed. The fitness distinguishes superior and inferior particle; the speed determines the direction and distance of particle moving. The optimal position particle pass is called “private best position”, and the optimal position in entire particle swarm's best position is called “global best position”. When particle moves in search space, each particle's movement is guided by private best position as well as global best position. The better particle will be found around the private best position and global best position, which will be updated until obtaining the optimal solution represented by global best position [13, 27].
Weights and thresholds of BP neural network have great influence on the fitting precision. Therefore, in order to continuously enhance fitting precision, genetic algorithm and particle swarm optimization algorithm are introduced to BP neural network for obtaining the optimal weights and thresholds, and finally, the BP neural network optimized by genetic algorithm (GABP) and BP neural network optimized by particle swarm optimization algorithm (PSOBP) are established.
3. Simulation Experiments
In the sequence from simplicity to complexity, we designed three nonlinear functions. Each prediction model is set to the same experimental conditions. Using each nonlinear function, our study randomly generated 10,000 data, and the first 8000 were considered as training data; the following 2000 were treated as testing data.
3.1. Parameters Setting and Performance Criteria
For verifying the accuracy and robustness of the FOAGRNN model, the FOAGRNN is compared with GRNN, GABP, PSOBP, and BP. The experimental conditions are set to equal, that means input and output variables, training and testing dataset, fitness function, population scale, and loops number are the same.
In FOAGRNN, the SPREAD parameter of GRNN is the optimal targets of FOA; one fruit fly position represents one parameter. In GABP and PSOBP, the weights and thresholds of BP are regarded as the population individual of GA and PSO. The reciprocal of root mean square error (RMSE) between prediction values and actual values is treated as individual fitness function. Population size and evolution generations of each evolutionary algorithm are set to 20 and 20.
Moreover, crossover and mutation probability of genetic algorithm is set to 0.2 and 0.1. In PSO, the particle maximum, particle maximum, velocity maximum, velocity minimum, and acceleration constants c1&c2 are set to 0.55,0.05,1, 1, and 1.49445. For BP neural network, the network topological structure is set to 241, the convergence criterion is RMSE less than or equal to 0.0001, and the iteration maximum, learning rate, and training function are 100, 0.1, and traingd (Table 1).

The root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) are used to assess the fitting precision of models. The smaller the value of RMSE, MAE, or MAPE is, the less the forecasting error is, the better the model fit is, and vice versa.
The formulae of three performance criteria are shown as follows:
where represents actual output value, represents predicted output value, and n is sample size.
3.2. Experiment 1: Mexican Hat Function
The first nonlinear function for testing is Mexican Hat function [28, 29], shown in formula (8) and Figure 3.
In formula (8), the range of the variables x and y is .
To search for the best population individual, FOAGRNN, GRNN, GABP, and PSOBP evolved 20 generations; the fitness value of best population individual in every generation appeared in Figure 4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
As shown in Figure 4, FOAGRNN and PSOBP begin to converge at the 4 and 16 generations, GRNN adopting equal step length searching method cannot capture the optimal speed parameter, and the GABP model converges slowly. The comparison result is shown in Table 2.

In Table 2, the most correct predictions are exhibited by FOAGRNN (Total Error=57.2698, RMSE=0.0412, MAE=0.0286, and MAPE=0.1468), followed by GRNN (Total Error=138.3150, RMSE=0.0961, MAE=0.0692, and MAPE=0.3719). Due to various local extrema of testing function, the GABP (Total Error=833.1369, RMSE=0.5256, MAE=0.4166, and MAPE=2.0451), PSOBP (Total Error=768.0228, RMSE=0.4824, MAE=0.3840, and MAPE=1.7451) models and BP (Total Error=861.4234, RMSE=0.5436, MAE=0.4307, and MAPE=2.3267) perform poorly. Figure 4 and Table 2 proved that FOAGRNN had the fastest convergence speed and best fitting precision.
Otherwise, with the same training and testing data, the programs of FOAGRNN, GRNN, GABP, PSOBP, and BP models had been run repeatedly for several times, each running of FOAGRNN and GRNN models returned the same result, but the predicted results of GABP, PSOBP, and BP models were differently within the same test scenario. That indicated the FOAGRNN and GRNN models had been trained sufficiently and had gained the optimal solution, the predictions of FOAGRNN and GRNN models were stable and reliable. However, for GABP, PSOBP, and BP models, the sample size was small; thorough training had not been received, so the optimal solution could not be obtained; models exhibited unsaturated and unstable state
3.3. Experiment 2: Rastrgrin Function
The second nonlinear function for testing is Rastrgrin function [30, 31]; its formula and graph are shown in formula (9) and Figure 5.
In formula (9), the range of the variables x and y is .
Figure 6 revealed that FOAGRNN had the fastest convergence speed and the highest accuracy, the GRNN adopting equal step length searching method cannot capture the optimal speed parameter. The detailed predictive comparison is shown in Table 3.

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Table 3 certified that the most accurate prediction is FOAGRNN, followed by GRNN, PSOBP, GABP, and BP. Meanwhile, the FOAGRNN and GRNN models were stable; PSOBP, GABP, and BP were unsaturated and unstable.
3.4. Experiment 3: Griewank Function
The third nonlinear function for testing is Griewank function [32, 33]. It is descripted in formula (10) and Figure 7.
In formula (10), the range of the variables x and y is .
The third testing function is more complex, with more local extreme values. Figure 8 and Table 4 revealed that, in convergence speed and fitting precision, FOAGRNN is superior to GABP and PSOBP, but it has no advantage over GRNN adopting equal step length searching method; the FOA needs further improvement and development.

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
4. Conclusion and Discussion
In response to the gaps and shortages of current prediction methods, this study established FOAGRNN model, compared FOAGRNN model with other four prediction models raised by previous scholar (GRNN, GABP, PSOBP, and BP). Simulation results showed that the FOAGRNN model proposed by this study had advantageous properties such as better fitting precision, faster calculation speed, fewer adjusted parameters, and stronger nonlinear fitting capability. The main conclusions are summarized as follows.
First, compare with BP model, GRNN model has fewer adjusted parameters, better fitting precision, and more suitable for small samples. The parameters searched by BP neural network model are the whole network weights and thresholds, so the number of parameters is huge. For example, in this study, BP neural network has 2 input nodes, 2 hidden nodes, and 1 output node; the parameters required to be sought are 17. Therefore, the BP neural network model is difficult to obtain global optimization and easily fall into the local extremum, and the convergence rate is relatively slow. Moreover, BP needs larger training dataset; the small or incomplete sample data will lead to insufficient training and uncertain predictions. But the parameter needed to be adjusted by GRNN model is only one, so the GRNN model has better fitting precision, faster convergence speed, and more suitable for small sample data.
Second, FOA can get global optimum solution more rapidly and greatly enhance the convergence rate of the GRNN model. FOA which is an artificial intelligence algorithm is put forward by foraging act of research and observation about groups of fruit flies. Compared with random assignment or loops with stepin for searching parameters, the FOA can obtain the best SPREAD parameter faster and improve the convergence speed of the GRNN model.
Third, the fitting precision of optimized BP neural network model is better than that of BP neural network model. In GA or PSO, population individuals are filtered according to fitness value, superior individuals with high fitness will be retained, and inferior individuals with low fitness will be eliminated; the new generation inherits the previous generation, and also superior to the previous generation, so cycle evolution, until meeting the termination conditions, gets the fittest individual. The GA or PSO algorithm obtains the optimal weights and thresholds of BP neural network more easy and quick than the random search method. Therefore, the predictions of GABP and PSOGA are more accurate than BP neural network model.
Nevertheless, more research is needed to present opportunities for making perfect predictions. As the nonlinear function becomes more and more complex, the local extrema are increasing, and the improvement effect of FOA is getting smaller and smaller, which indicates that the processing capacity for treating complex nonlinear function of FOA needs to be further improved and developed. The same problem also exists in GA and PSO. Moreover, the FOAGRNN model should be further tested and developed through its application in other fields of science, math, technology, and engineering.
Data Availability
The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the National Social Science Fund of China (Grant no. 17BGL202).
References
 Z. Hua, Y. Wang, X. Xu, B. Zhang, and L. Liang, “Predicting corporate financial distress based on integration of support vector machine and logistic regression,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 434–440, 2002. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. M. Collins and M. R. Clark, “An application of the theory of neural computation to the prediction of workplace behaviour: an illustration and assessment of network analysis,” Personnel Psychology, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 503–524, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
 S. H. Zanakis and I. BecerraFernandez, “Competitiveness of nations: A knowledge discovery examination,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 166, no. 1, pp. 185–211, 2005. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 W. Luo and Z. Fu, “Application of generalized regression neural network to the agricultural machinery demand forecasting,” Applied Mechanics and Materials, no. 278, pp. 2177–2181, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 R. Hu, S. Wen, Z. Zeng, and T. Huang, “A shortterm power load forecasting model based on the generalized regression neural network with decreasing step fruit fly optimization algorithm,” Neurocomputing, vol. 221, pp. 24–31, 2017. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 T. Chen and C. Yu, “Motion control with deadzone estimation and compensation using GRNN for TWUSM drive system,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 10931–10941, 2009. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 E. Orhan, F. Temurtas, and A. Ç. Tanrikulu, “Tuberculosis disease diagnosis using artificial neural networks,” Journal of Medical Systems, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 299–302, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. C. Chelgani and E. Jorjani, “Microwave irradiation pretreatment and peroxyacetic acid desulfurization of coal and application of GRNN simultaneous predictor,” Fuel, vol. 90, no. 11, pp. 3156–3163, 2011. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 I. Ladlani, L. Houichi, L. Djemili, S. Heddam, and K. Belouz, “Modeling daily reference evapotranspiration (ET 0) in the north of Algeria using generalized regression neural networks (GRNN) and radial basis function neural networks (RBFNN): A comparative study,” Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, vol. 118, no. 34, pp. 163–178, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 N. Ceryan, U. Okkan, and A. Kesimal, “Application of generalized regression neural networks in predicting the unconfined compressive strength of carbonate rocks,” Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 1055–1072, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 F. Wang, B. Shen, S. Sun, and Z. Wang, “Improved GA and Pareto optimizationbased facial expression recognition,” Assembly Automation, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 192–199, 2016. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 G. Y. Li, F. Yan, and X. F. Guo, “Gray neural network algorithm improved by genetic algorithm,” Control Engineering of China, vol. no. 20, pp. 934–937, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
 H. Zhao and S. Guo, “Annual energy consumption forecasting based on PSOCAGRNN model,” Abstract and Applied Analysis, vol. 2014, Article ID 217630, 11 pages, 2014. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. J. Ma, J. X. You, and Z. Chen, “Grey neural network model based on modified particle swarm optimization algorithm and its application,” Journal of Tongji University (Natural Science), vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 740–743, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
 B. Dengiz, C. AlabasUslu, and O. Dengiz, “Optimization of manufacturing systems using a neural network metamodel with a new training approach,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 1191–1197, 2009. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 R. S. Sexton, B. Alidaee, R. E. Dorsey, and J. D. Johnson, “Global optimization for artificial neural networks: A tabu search application,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 106, no. 23, pp. 570–584, 1998. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. Dorigo and L. M. Gambardella, “Ant colonies for the travelling salesman problem,” BioSystems, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 73–81, 1997. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. Gazzah, B. Jaouachi, and F. Sakli, “Optimization of bagged denim fabric behaviors using the genetic algorithms and the ant colony optimization methods,” International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 772–792, 2015. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 W.T. Pan, “A new fruit fly optimization algorithm: taking the financial distress model as an example,” KnowledgeBased Systems, no. 26, pp. 69–74, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Y. Zhang, S. Na, J. Niu, and B. Jiang, “The influencing factors, regional difference and temporal variation of industrial technology innovation: Evidence with the FOAGRNN model,” Sustainability, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 187, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
 J. H. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 1992.
 S. G. Kulkarni, A. K. Chaudhary, S. Nandi, S. S. Tambe, and B. D. Kulkarni, “Modeling and monitoring of batch processes using principal component analysis (PCA) assisted generalized regression neural networks (GRNN),” Biochemical Engineering Journal, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 193–210, 2004. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 H. B. Celikoglu, “Application of radial basis function and generalized regression neural networks in nonlinear utility function specification for travel mode choice modelling,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 44, no. 78, pp. 640–658, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. A. FernándezGámez, A. M. GilCorral, and F. GalánValdivieso, “Corporate reputation and market value: Evidence with generalized regression neural networks,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 46, pp. 69–76, 2016. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 D. E. Rumelhart and J. L. McClelland, Parallel Distributed Processing, vol. 1 and 2, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 1986.
 Y. Huang, J. Zhang, X. Li, and L. Tian, “Thermal error modeling by integrating GA and BP algorithms for the highspeed spindle,” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 71, no. 912, pp. 1669–1675, 2014. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, “Particle swarm optimization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International of first Conference on Neural Networks, pp. 1942–1948, December 1995. View at: Google Scholar
 L.K. Shark and C. Yu, “Design of matched wavelets based on generalized Mexicanhat function,” Signal Processing, vol. 86, no. 7, pp. 1451–1469, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 F. Jin, D. Feng, and S. Gómez, “Image Registration Algorithm Using Mexican Hat FunctionBased Operator and Grouped Feature Matching Strategy,” PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 4, p. e95576, 2014. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 L. A. Rastrigin, “Extremal control systems,” Theoretical Foundations of Engineering Cybernetics Series, no. 3, 1974. View at: Google Scholar
 H. Mühlenbein, M. Schomisch, and J. Born, “The parallel genetic algorithm as function optimizer,” Parallel Computing, vol. 17, no. 67, pp. 619–632, 1991. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. O. Griewank, “Generalized descent for global optimization,” Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 11–39, 1981. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar  MathSciNet
 M. Locatelli, “A note on the Griewank test function,” Journal of Global Optimization, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 169–174, 2003. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar  MathSciNet
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Yongli Zhang 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.