4.7 Article

An Improved Slime Mould Algorithm for Demand Estimation of Urban Water Resources

期刊

MATHEMATICS
卷 9, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/math9121316

关键词

water demand estimation; slime mould algorithm; opposition-based learning; elite chaotic searching strategy; parameters optimization

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2019YFD1100905]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study proposed an improved slime mould algorithm (ESMA) to estimate water demand in Nanchang City, demonstrating its advantages of fast convergence, high precision, and robustness through experiments. Four estimation models were established and optimized using ESMA, with the best performance observed in the hybrid prediction model.
A slime mould algorithm (SMA) is a new meta-heuristic algorithm, which can be widely used in practical engineering problems. In this paper, an improved slime mould algorithm (ESMA) is proposed to estimate the water demand of Nanchang City. Firstly, the opposition-based learning strategy and elite chaotic searching strategy are used to improve the SMA. By comparing the ESMA with other intelligent optimization algorithms in 23 benchmark test functions, it is verified that the ESMA has the advantages of fast convergence, high convergence precision, and strong robustness. Secondly, based on the data of historical water consumption and local economic structure of Nanchang, four estimation models, including linear, exponential, logarithmic, and hybrid, are established. The experiment takes the water consumption of Nanchang City from 2004 to 2019 as an example to analyze, and the estimation models are optimized using the ESMA to determine the model parameters, then the estimation models are tested. The simulation results show that all four models can obtain better prediction accuracy, and the proposed ESMA has the best effect on the hybrid prediction model, and the prediction accuracy is up to 97.705%. Finally, the water consumption of Nanchang in 2020-2024 is forecasted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据