Differential Evolution vs Particle Swarm Optimization: A Performance Analysis for Scientific and Biomedical Applications

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive comparison of Differential Evolution (DE) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithms, tailored for researchers and professionals in scientific and drug development fields. We explore the foundational principles and evolutionary history of both metaheuristics, detail their methodological adaptations for complex real-world problems like parameter estimation and vehicle routing, and analyze strategies to overcome common limitations like premature convergence. Synthesizing evidence from recent benchmarks and real-world applications, we present a validated performance analysis to guide algorithm selection, with specific implications for optimizing biomedical research and clinical development processes.

Evolutionary Algorithms Unveiled: The Core Principles of DE and PSO

The fields of computational optimization and artificial intelligence have long drawn inspiration from biological systems. Two of the most influential nature-inspired algorithms—Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) and Differential Evolution (DE)—emerged from observing collective behaviors in nature, yet they fundamentally differ in their philosophical foundations and operational mechanics. PSO, introduced by Kennedy and Eberhart in 1995, was designed to simulate the social dynamics of bird flocking or fish schooling, where collective intelligence emerges from simple rules followed by individuals [1] [2]. In contrast, DE, developed by Price and Storn in 1997, grounds itself in the principles of population genetics and evolution, leveraging vector differences between candidate solutions to explore search spaces [3]. While both belong to the broader class of population-based metaheuristics, their contrasting biological metaphors—social learning versus genetic evolution—result in distinctly different algorithmic behaviors and performance characteristics that have been extensively studied in computational optimization research.

This article provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of these two algorithmic approaches, examining their historical foundations, mechanistic differences, and empirical performance across various problem domains. For researchers in fields such as drug development where optimization problems abound—from molecular docking studies to experimental design—understanding the relative strengths and limitations of these algorithms is crucial for selecting appropriate computational tools. We present experimental data from benchmark studies and real-world applications, including detailed methodologies to enable replication and validation of findings.

Historical Foundations and Biological Metaphors

Particle Swarm Optimization: Social Intelligence from Bird Flocking

The development of Particle Swarm Optimization was directly inspired by the choreographed flocking behavior of birds, a phenomenon that has fascinated biologists and computer scientists alike. The elegant murmurations of starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), in particular, demonstrate how complex, coordinated group behaviors can emerge from simple local interactions without centralized control [4]. In these avian aggregations, each bird adjusts its movements based on its own experience and the behaviors of nearby neighbors, resulting in the stunning wave-like patterns known as orientation waves [4].

Kennedy and Eberhart captured this biological phenomenon computationally by designing agents ("particles") that navigate the search space using two primary guidance mechanisms: the individual's best-found solution (personal best or Pbest) and the swarm's best-found solution (global best or Gbest) [2]. The original PSO algorithm employs velocity and position update equations that simulate the social learning process:

[ \begin{aligned} v{id}(t+1) &= w \cdot v{id}(t) + c1 \cdot r1 \cdot (Pbest{id}(t) - x{id}(t)) + c2 \cdot r2 \cdot (Gbestd(t) - x{id}(t)) \ x{id}(t+1) &= x{id}(t) + v_{id}(t+1) \end{aligned} ]

Where (v{id}) and (x{id}) represent the velocity and position of particle (i) in dimension (d), (w) is the inertia weight, (c1) and (c2) are acceleration coefficients, and (r1), (r2) are random numbers [2]. This formulation creates a dynamic balance between exploration (searching new areas) and exploitation (refining known good solutions), mirroring how birds in a flock balance individual exploration with following the group's direction.

Differential Evolution: Genetic Operations for Optimization

Differential Evolution draws its inspiration from the principles of natural selection and population genetics that underlie biological evolution [3]. Where PSO mimics social learning, DE implements genetic operations—mutation, crossover, and selection—to evolve a population of candidate solutions toward optimality. The algorithm maintains a population of candidate solutions and generates new candidates by combining existing ones according to differential mutation and crossover operations [3].

The classic DE algorithm follows these key steps:

• Mutation: For each target vector (Xi^{G1}), a donor vector (Di^{G1}) is created by adding the weighted difference of two randomly selected population vectors to a third vector: (Di^{G1} = X{r0}^{G1} + F \cdot (X{r1}^{G1} - X{r2}^{G1})), where (F) is the scaling factor [3].
• Crossover: The trial vector (T_i^{G1}) is created through binomial crossover, mixing components from the target vector and donor vector with probability (CR) [3].
• Selection: The target vector is compared to the trial vector, with the better solution surviving to the next generation [3].

This evolutionary approach allows DE to effectively explore complex search spaces without requiring gradient information, making it particularly suitable for non-differentiable, multimodal, or noisy optimization problems commonly encountered in scientific and engineering applications [3].

Algorithmic Mechanisms and Workflows

Particle Swarm Optimization Workflow

Figure 1: Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) workflow illustrating the iterative process of social learning-inspired optimization.

The PSO algorithm operates through the coordinated movement of particles in the search space, with each particle representing a potential solution. As shown in Figure 1, the algorithm begins by initializing a swarm of particles with random positions and velocities. Each particle's fitness is evaluated according to the objective function, and both personal best (Pbest) and global best (Gbest) positions are updated accordingly. The core of the algorithm lies in the velocity update equation, which incorporates three components: inertia (maintaining previous direction), cognitive component (attraction to personal best), and social component (attraction to global best) [1] [2]. This combination allows the swarm to efficiently explore the search space while progressively converging toward promising regions.

Differential Evolution Workflow

Figure 2: Differential Evolution (DE) workflow demonstrating the evolution-inspired optimization process.

Differential Evolution operates through genetic operations on a population of candidate solutions, as depicted in Figure 2. After initializing the population and evaluating fitness, DE enters its main loop of mutation, crossover, and selection. The mutation operation creates donor vectors by combining existing solutions with scaled differences, enabling exploration of the search space [3]. Crossover then mixes information between target and donor vectors to create trial vectors, introducing diversity while preserving beneficial traits. Finally, selection determines whether trial vectors survive to the next generation based on their fitness, implementing a "survival of the fittest" mechanism [3]. This evolutionary approach allows DE to maintain a diverse population while progressively improving solution quality.

Performance Comparison: Experimental Data and Analysis

Comprehensive Benchmark Studies

A large-scale comparative study published in 2023 provided compelling empirical evidence regarding the relative performance of DE and PSO algorithms [5]. This comprehensive analysis evaluated ten DE variants and ten PSO variants on numerous single-objective numerical benchmarks and 22 real-world problems, with algorithms selected from historical developments spanning the 1990s up to 2022. The experimental protocol executed each algorithm 51 times per problem, with results ranked based on averaged performance and statistical significance verified using Friedman's test with Shaffer's post-hoc procedure [5].

Table 1: Performance comparison of DE and PSO variants across multiple problem categories [5]

Algorithm Family	Average Rank	Number of Wins	Real-World Problem Performance	Statistical Significance
DE variants	2.1	68%	Superior	Mostly significant (p < 0.05)
PSO variants	7.9	32%	Inferior	Mostly non-significant
Performance Gap	DE advantage: 5.8 ranks	DE wins > 2× more	DE consistently better	DE superiority significant

The results demonstrated a clear advantage for DE-based algorithms across all problem categories. In all nine competitions conducted, the first four ranked algorithms were always DE-based variants, with HARD-DE and L-SHADE-cnEpSin emerging as particularly strong performers [5]. The differences between DE and PSO algorithms were statistically significant, especially for real-world problems and specific benchmark categories. Notably, despite DE's superior performance in these controlled studies, PSO algorithms remain two to three times more frequently used in the literature, suggesting a disconnect between demonstrated efficacy and popular adoption [5].

Application-Specific Performance

Chemical Experiment Design and Model Calibration

In chemometrics and experimental design, DE has demonstrated particular effectiveness for complex optimization problems. Research applying DE to design optimal chemical experiments found it superior to traditional approaches for problems involving the Arrhenius equation, reaction rates, concentration measures, and chemical mixtures [3]. The algorithm's ability to handle non-differentiable, multimodal, and high-dimensional problems made it particularly suitable for these applications where traditional gradient-based methods struggle.

Similarly, in crop model calibration, DE outperformed other evolutionary algorithms when calibrating the HORTSYST model for fertigation management [6]. The model, which simulates photo-thermal time, daily dry matter production, nitrogen uptake, leaf area index, and crop transpiration, required precise parameter estimation for accurate predictions. DE successfully identified optimal parameter values, demonstrating robust performance with root mean square error (RMSE) values close to zero, indicating excellent model prediction capability [6].

Modified PSO Approaches and Comparative Performance

Recent research has focused on addressing PSO's limitations through various modifications. The Teaming Behavior-based PSO (TBPSO) introduces teamwork concepts by dividing particles into multiple teams with selected leaders [1]. This approach allows particles to utilize team prompt information to guide the search process, with team leaders updating search directions through information factors. Experimental results on 27 test functions, shortest path problems, and optimal SINR value problems for UAV deployment showed that TBPSO achieved competitive performance with faster convergence and higher precision compared to other PSO variants [1].

Another innovative approach, Human Behavior-based PSO (HPSO), introduced the global worst particle into the velocity equation with random weights following a standard normal distribution [2]. This modification aimed to better balance exploration and exploitation while reducing parameter sensitivity. Testing on 28 benchmark functions demonstrated improved convergence accuracy and speed with lower computational cost compared to standard PSO [2]. Despite these improvements, however, comprehensive comparisons indicate that even enhanced PSO variants generally trail behind state-of-the-art DE algorithms in terms of overall performance [5].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 2: Key algorithmic components and their functions in evolutionary optimization

Component	Function in PSO	Function in DE	Biological Metaphor
Population/Swarm	Collection of particles representing potential solutions	Collection of vectors representing candidate solutions	Group of organisms in an ecosystem
Fitness Function	Evaluates solution quality; determines Pbest and Gbest	Evaluates solution quality; determines selection	Environmental selection pressure
Mutation Operator	Typically not used in standard PSO	Creates donor vectors through differential mutation	Genetic mutation introducing variation
Crossover Operator	Not used in standard PSO	Combines target and donor vectors to create trials	Genetic recombination mixing traits
Inertia Weight	Balances exploration and exploitation in velocity updates	Not applicable	Momentum in movement decisions
Social Learning	Particles learn from Gbest and Pbest	Not directly implemented	Social information sharing in groups
Selection Pressure	Implicit through attraction to best solutions	Explicit through survival of better solutions	Natural selection in evolution

The comparative analysis between Differential Evolution and Particle Swarm Optimization reveals a complex landscape where biological inspiration has led to distinctly different algorithmic approaches with varying performance characteristics. While both algorithms belong to the broader class of population-based metaheuristics, their underlying metaphors—social learning versus genetic evolution—result in fundamentally different search dynamics and performance profiles.

Comprehensive benchmark studies consistently demonstrate DE's superior performance across a wide range of optimization problems, particularly for real-world applications and complex multimodal landscapes [5]. DE's evolutionary operations, specifically its differential mutation and strict selection mechanisms, provide effective exploration and exploitation balance that often outperforms PSO's social learning approach. This performance advantage persists despite the continued development of innovative PSO variants that incorporate teaming behavior [1], human social metaphors [2], and other enhancements.

For researchers in drug development and related fields, these findings have significant practical implications. DE algorithms should be strongly considered for complex optimization tasks including experimental design, model calibration, parameter estimation, and molecular optimization problems [3] [6]. The algorithm's robustness, simplicity of implementation, and consistent performance make it particularly valuable for scientific applications where reproducibility and reliability are paramount. Meanwhile, PSO remains a viable option for problems where its social metaphor provides particular advantages, such as dynamic environments or scenarios where conceptual alignment with collaborative processes is beneficial.

Future research directions should focus on further elucidating the fundamental reasons for DE's performance advantages and developing next-generation PSO variants that can more effectively compete with state-of-the-art DE algorithms. Additionally, hybrid approaches that combine strengths from both algorithmic families may offer promising pathways for enhanced optimization capability. As nature continues to inspire computational innovation, the productive tension between social and evolutionary metaphors will likely yield further advances in optimization methodology with broad applications across scientific domains.

Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) is a population-based metaheuristic algorithm inspired by the collective behavior of bird flocks or fish schools [7] [8]. Since its introduction in 1995, PSO has become a prominent optimization technique due to its simplicity, ease of implementation, and fast convergence characteristics [7] [8]. The algorithm operates by having a population of candidate solutions, called particles, which move through the search space to find optimal solutions [9]. Each particle adjusts its trajectory based on its own experience (personal best) and the collective knowledge of the swarm (global best) [7] [8].

This guide focuses on the core mechanics of PSO—specifically the velocity update process and the roles of personal best (pbest) and global best (gbest). Understanding these components is crucial for researchers comparing PSO with other optimization techniques like Differential Evolution (DE), particularly in scientific and engineering domains where parameter tuning and optimization play critical roles in complex systems [10] [11]. While PSO is known for its rapid convergence, DE often demonstrates superior performance in finding more accurate solutions for many complex optimization problems, though PSO remains more popular in the literature [10].

Core PSO Mechanics and Mathematical Formulation

Fundamental Components of PSO

The PSO algorithm consists of several key components that work together to navigate the search space:

• Particles: Each particle represents a potential solution in the search space and is characterized by its current position and velocity [9] [7]. The position vector encodes the solution itself, while the velocity vector determines the direction and magnitude of movement [12].

• Personal Best (pbest): This is the best position (the one yielding the optimal fitness value) that an individual particle has visited so far during the optimization process [8]. Each particle maintains its own pbest value throughout the search.

• Global Best (gbest): This represents the best position discovered by any particle in the entire swarm [8]. In the global topology variant, all particles are influenced by this single gbest value.

• Fitness Function: This problem-specific function evaluates the quality of a particle's position and drives the selection of pbest and gbest values [12].

Velocity and Position Update Equations

The core of PSO lies in how particles update their velocity and position each iteration. The standard update equations are:

Velocity Update: [ v{ij}(t+1) = w \cdot v{ij}(t) + c1 \cdot r1 \cdot (pbest{ij}(t) - x{ij}(t)) + c2 \cdot r2 \cdot (gbestj(t) - x{ij}(t)) ] [7]

Position Update: [ x{ij}(t+1) = x{ij}(t) + v_{ij}(t+1) ] [7] [12]

Where:

• (v_{ij}(t)) is the velocity of particle (i) in dimension (j) at iteration (t)
• (x_{ij}(t)) is the position of particle (i) in dimension (j) at iteration (t)
• (w) is the inertia weight coefficient
• (c1) and (c2) are cognitive and social acceleration coefficients
• (r1) and (r2) are random numbers between 0 and 1
• (pbest_{ij}(t)) is the personal best of particle (i) in dimension (j)
• (gbest_j(t)) is the global best in dimension (j)

The PSO Algorithm Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the complete PSO algorithm workflow, showing how velocity updates, position updates, and fitness evaluations interact throughout the optimization process:

Comparative Performance Analysis: PSO vs. Differential Evolution

Performance Comparison on Benchmark Problems

Extensive research has compared the performance of PSO and DE across various optimization problems. The table below summarizes key findings from recent studies:

Table 1: Performance Comparison of PSO and DE on Various Problems

Problem Domain	Test System/Functions	Key Performance Findings	Source
Power System Protection	IEEE 6-bus & WSCC 9-bus test systems	DE provided superior results with minimum computational time; HGSO showed significant reduction in operation time compared to PSO	[13]
General Numerical Optimization	CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, CEC2022 benchmark suites	DE algorithms clearly outperform PSO on average; PSO performs better than DE on relatively few problems	[10] [11]
Single-Objective Numerical Optimization	22 real-world problems and mathematical functions	DE achieved better performance on most problems; PSO popularity in literature is 2-3 times higher than DE despite performance gap	[10]
Hybrid Algorithm Performance	CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, CEC2022	MDE-DPSO (hybrid) showed significant competitiveness against 15 other algorithms	[11]

Algorithmic Characteristics and Trade-offs

The performance differences between PSO and DE stem from their fundamental operational characteristics:

Table 2: Fundamental Characteristics of PSO vs. Differential Evolution

Characteristic	Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)	Differential Evolution (DE)
Core Inspiration	Social behavior of bird flocking/fish schooling	Natural evolution processes
Solution Movement	Particles move regardless of performance, remembering best historical positions	Moves only if new position is better (one-to-one selection)
Information Utilization	Guided by personal best, global best, and recent move size/direction	Mainly function of current population location distribution
Memory Mechanism	Remembers personal best positions and swarm's best known position	Generally remembers only current locations and objective values
Convergence Behavior	Faster initial convergence, but may stagnate prematurely	More methodical convergence, often finding better final solutions
Parameter Sensitivity	Sensitive to inertia weight and acceleration coefficients	Sensitive to mutation and crossover parameters

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Standard Experimental Setup for PSO-DE Comparisons

To ensure fair and reproducible comparisons between PSO and DE variants, researchers typically follow standardized experimental protocols:

• Benchmark Selection: Use established test suites like CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, and CEC2022 that contain diverse, challenging optimization problems with different characteristics [11].

• Parameter Configuration:

  • PSO: Swarm size of 20-50 particles, inertia weight (w) between 0.4-0.9, cognitive and social coefficients (c₁, c₂) typically 1.5-2.0 each [8]
  • DE: Population size similar to PSO, mutation factor F = 0.5, crossover rate CR = 0.9 as common defaults [10]

• Termination Criteria: Fixed number of function evaluations (computational budget) to enable fair comparison, typically ranging from 10,000 to 100,000 depending on problem complexity [10].

• Performance Metrics: Solution quality (fitness value) at termination, convergence speed, success rate, and statistical significance testing [11].

PSO Velocity Update Experimental Analysis

The velocity update mechanism can be systematically analyzed through controlled experiments. The following diagram illustrates the relationship between PSO parameters and their effects on swarm behavior:

For researchers implementing and testing PSO algorithms, the following tools and resources are essential:

Table 3: Essential Research Tools for PSO Implementation and Testing

Tool Category	Specific Examples	Function in PSO Research
Programming Environments	MATLAB, Python with NumPy/SciPy	Algorithm implementation and rapid prototyping
Simulation Platforms	POWER WORLD simulator, Custom simulators	Validation of results in application contexts
Benchmark Suites	CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, CEC2022	Standardized performance testing and comparison
Visualization Tools	Matplotlib, ParaView, Custom plotting	Analysis of convergence behavior and swarm dynamics
Statistical Analysis	R, Python stats models, scikit-posthocs	Performance comparison and significance testing
High-Performance Computing	GPU implementations, Parallel processing	Handling large-scale problems and multiple runs

Advanced PSO Velocity Update Strategies

Adaptive Parameter Control Methods

Recent advances in PSO have focused on dynamic parameter adaptation to balance exploration and exploitation more effectively:

• Adaptive Inertia Weight: Instead of fixed inertia, implementations now use time-varying approaches where w decreases linearly from ~0.9 to ~0.4 during the run, or nonlinear/chaotic schedules for smoother transitions [14].

• Self-Tuning Coefficients: Advanced variants implement adaptive cognitive and social coefficients based on swarm diversity, success rates, or fitness improvement trends [11] [14].

• Hybrid DE-PSO Operators: Algorithms like MDE-DPSO incorporate DE's mutation and crossover operators into PSO to enhance diversity and help particles escape local optima [11].

Velocity Update Variants

The basic velocity update equation has been modified in various PSO variants to address specific limitations:

• Constriction Factor PSO: Uses a mathematical constriction factor instead of inertia weight to ensure convergence while maintaining swarm stability [8].

• Comprehensive Learning PSO (CLPSO): Particles learn from multiple exemplary particles rather than just personal best and global best, preserving diversity for longer periods [11].

• Fully Informed PSO (FIPS): Particles use information from all neighbors rather than just the best performer, creating more robust social influence [12].

The core mechanics of PSO—particularly the velocity update process using pbest and gbest—create a powerful optimization paradigm with distinct strengths and limitations compared to Differential Evolution. While PSO typically demonstrates faster initial convergence and simpler implementation, DE often achieves superior final solution quality for many complex optimization problems [10].

For researchers and practitioners in drug development and scientific computing, this comparison suggests a context-dependent approach to algorithm selection. PSO may be preferable when quick, good-enough solutions are needed or when dealing with problems where its social learning mechanism aligns well with the search landscape characteristics. However, for problems requiring high-precision solutions or where PSO exhibits premature convergence, DE or modern hybrid approaches may yield better results [13] [11].

Future research directions include further refinement of adaptive parameter control, problem-aware hybrid algorithms that leverage the strengths of both PSO and DE, and specialized variants for domain-specific applications in drug discovery and pharmaceutical development.

In the field of metaheuristic optimization, two algorithm families have demonstrated remarkable performance across diverse scientific domains: Differential Evolution (DE) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO). Both population-based approaches emerged in the mid-1990s and have since evolved into sophisticated optimization tools applied from particle physics to drug discovery [10] [15]. While PSO enjoys greater popularity in the literature, broader performance comparisons reveal a curious paradox: DE algorithms frequently outperform PSO variants on numerical benchmarks and real-world problems, yet remain less frequently adopted [10]. This performance gap underscores the importance of understanding DE's operational mechanics—its distinctive mutation, crossover, and selection processes—which contribute to its robust search capabilities and convergence properties.

The core philosophical difference between these approaches lies in their movement mechanisms. DE operates primarily through differential mutation and crossover operations, creating trial vectors that must compete against parent vectors to survive to the next generation. In contrast, PSO particles navigate the search space influenced by their historical best positions and the swarm's collective experience, moving continuously regardless of immediate improvement [10]. This fundamental distinction in operational methodology explains their complementary strengths and the emerging trend of hybrid DE-PSO algorithms that attempt to leverage the advantages of both approaches [11] [16] [17].

The Core Operational Mechanisms of Differential Evolution

Population Initialization and Representation

DE begins by initializing a population of NP candidate solutions, often called "vectors" or "individuals." Each individual represents a potential solution to the optimization problem within the D-dimensional search space. The initial population is typically generated randomly with uniform distribution across the search bounds, ensuring diverse coverage of the solution space [16]. Formally, for generation G = 0, the j-th component of the i-th vector is initialized as:

xᵢ,ⱼ,₀ = xₘᵢₙ,ⱼ + rand(0,1) · (xₘₐₓ,ⱼ - xₘᵢₙ,ⱼ)

where rand(0,1) denotes a uniformly distributed random variable in [0,1], and xₘᵢₙ,ⱼ and xₘₐₓ,ⱼ represent the minimum and maximum bounds for the j-th dimension, respectively [16]. This randomized initialization strategy promotes broad exploration of the search landscape from the algorithm's inception.

Mutation: Generating Donor Vectors

The mutation operation distinguishes DE from other evolutionary algorithms through its unique differential approach. For each target vector in the population, DE creates a mutant/donor vector by combining scaled differences between randomly selected population members [16]. The most common mutation strategy, known as DE/rand/1, generates the donor vector Vᵢ,𝒸 according to:

Vᵢ,𝒸 = Xᵣ₁,𝒸 + F · (Xᵣ₂,𝒸 - Xᵣ₃,𝒸)

Here, r₁, r₂, and r₃ are distinct random indices different from the target index i, and F is the scale factor parameter typically in the range [0, 2] that controls the amplification of the differential variation [16]. This differential mutation strategy enables DE to automatically adapt step sizes based on the distribution of the current population, providing a balance between exploration and exploitation throughout the optimization process.

Table 1: Common DE Mutation Strategies

Strategy Name	Mathematical Formulation	Characteristics
DE/rand/1	Vᵢ,𝒸 = Xᵣ₁,𝒸 + F · (Xᵣ₂,𝒸 - Xᵣ₃,𝒸)	Preserves diversity, good for exploration
DE/best/1	Vᵢ,𝒸 = X_best,𝒸 + F · (Xᵣ₁,𝒸 - Xᵣ₂,𝒸)	Faster convergence, exploitation-focused
DE/current-to-best/1	Vᵢ,𝒸 = Xᵢ,𝒸 + F · (X_best,𝒸 - Xᵢ,𝒸) + F · (Xᵣ₁,𝒸 - Xᵣ₂,𝒸)	Balanced approach with guidance
DE/rand/2	Vᵢ,𝒸 = Xᵣ₁,𝒸 + F · (Xᵣ₂,𝒸 - Xᵣ₃,𝒸) + F · (Xᵣ₄,𝒸 - Xᵣ₅,𝒸)	Enhanced exploration with more differences

Diagram 1: DE Mutation Process (DE/rand/1 strategy) showing how donor vectors are created from population members.

Crossover: Creating Trial Vectors

Following mutation, DE employs crossover to increase population diversity by combining the donor vector with the target vector. This process generates the trial vector Uᵢ,𝒸 that will compete against the target vector for survival. The most common approach is binomial crossover, which operates component-by-component according to:

Uᵢ,ⱼ,𝒸 = Vᵢ,ⱼ,𝒸 if rand(0,1) ≤ Cr or j = j_rand Uᵢ,ⱼ,𝒸 = Xᵢ,ⱼ,𝒸 otherwise

Here, Cr is the crossover rate parameter ∈ [0,1] that controls the probability of inheriting components from the donor vector, and j_rand is a randomly selected dimension index that ensures at least one component is inherited from the donor vector [16]. This strategic requirement prevents duplicate clones of the target vector and maintains population diversity. The crossover operation allows DE to combine information from different vectors while preserving successful elements from the current solution.

Selection: Greedy Competition

DE employs a one-to-one selection mechanism that directly compares each trial vector against its corresponding target vector. This greedy selection strategy is simple yet powerful:

Xᵢ,𝒸₊₁ = Uᵢ,𝒸 if f(Uᵢ,𝒸) ≤ f(Xᵢ,𝒸) Xᵢ,𝒸₊₁ = Xᵢ,𝒸 otherwise

Where f() represents the objective function being minimized [16]. This deterministic selection process ensures that the population either maintains its current quality or improves with each generation. The one-to-one replacement strategy differs significantly from the generational replacement found in many other evolutionary algorithms and contributes to DE's convergence properties.

Diagram 2: Complete DE Operational Workflow showing the sequence of core operations from initialization to termination.

DE vs. PSO: Performance Comparison and Experimental Data

Comprehensive Benchmark Studies

Recent large-scale comparisons examining DE and PSO variants from historical developments to contemporary implementations reveal a consistent performance advantage for DE algorithms. A 2023 study comparing ten PSO variants against ten DE variants across numerous single-objective numerical benchmarks and 22 real-world problems found that DE algorithms clearly outperform PSO on average [10]. This performance advantage persists despite PSO being two-to-three times more popular in the literature, suggesting a significant discrepancy between demonstrated performance and researcher preference.

The performance gap appears particularly pronounced on complex, multimodal problems where DE's differential mutation and greedy selection provide superior ability to escape local optima. However, the study notes that problems where PSO performs better than DE do exist, though they are "relatively few" [10]. This comprehensive analysis suggests that DE's operational mechanisms—particularly its differential mutation and one-to-one selection—contribute to its robust performance across diverse problem landscapes.

Table 2: DE vs. PSO Performance Comparison Across Domains

Application Domain	Problem Type	Superior Algorithm	Performance Advantage	Key Citation
Numerical Optimization	CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, CEC2022 benchmarks	DE (in majority of functions)	Significant competitiveness in solution quality	[11] [18]
Vehicle Routing	Postman delivery routing	DE	Notable superiority in minimizing travel distances	[19]
Free Space Optical Communications	Relay placement optimization	PSO	Better minimization of cost function	[20]
Particle Physics	Texture optimization with chi-square criterion	HE-DEPSO (DE-PSO hybrid)	Optimized chi-square function below bound value	[17]
General Real-World Problems	22 diverse real-world problems	DE	Clear outperformance on average	[10]

Real-World Application Performance

In practical applications, the operational differences between DE and PSO translate to measurable performance variations. A 2021 study on postman delivery routing problems demonstrated that while both DE and PSO "clearly outperformed the actual routing of current practices," DE performances were notably superior to those of PSO [19]. The research optimized delivery routes for Chiang Rai post office in Thailand, with DE consistently achieving shorter travel distances across all operational days examined.

Similarly, in particle physics applications, DE-based approaches have proven successful where exhaustive and traditional algorithms fail. A 2024 study validated 4-zero texture models in particle physics using a DE variant incorporating PSO elements (HE-DEPSO) to obtain chi-squared values below required bounds [17]. This hybrid approach leveraged DE's mutation strategies while incorporating PSO's social information sharing, demonstrating how understanding both algorithms' core operations enables more effective optimization strategies.

Experimental Protocols and Benchmarking Methodologies

Standardized Benchmarking Approaches

Performance comparisons between DE and PSO typically employ standardized benchmark suites and experimental protocols to ensure fair evaluation. The CEC (Congress on Evolutionary Computation) benchmark sets—including Classical, CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, and CEC2022—provide diverse function landscapes with different characteristics: unimodal, multimodal, hybrid, and composition functions [11] [21] [18]. These benchmarks are specifically designed to test various algorithm capabilities, including exploitation (unimodal functions), exploration (multimodal functions), and adaptability (hybrid and composition functions).

Standard experimental methodology typically follows one of two approaches: (1) fixed computational budget, where algorithms are allocated a predetermined number of function evaluations and compared based on solution quality, or (2) fixed quality threshold, where algorithms are compared based on the number of function evaluations required to reach a target solution quality [10]. The fixed-budget approach is more common in contemporary comparisons, as it reflects practical computational constraints [10] [18].

Algorithm Parameter Configurations

Proper parameter tuning is essential for fair comparison between DE and PSO variants. DE typically requires configuration of three primary parameters: population size (NP), scale factor (F), and crossover rate (Cr). Advanced DE implementations often employ self-adaptive parameter control mechanisms, such as the success-history based parameter adaptation in SHADE [17], to reduce sensitivity to initial parameter settings.

PSO requires configuration of inertia weight (w), cognitive acceleration coefficient (c₁), and social acceleration coefficient (c₂). Modern PSO variants often implement adaptive strategies, such as time-varying acceleration coefficients (PSO-TVAC), where c₁ decreases from 2.5 to 0.5 while c₂ increases from 0.5 to 2.5 over the optimization process [16]. This encourages initial exploration followed by later exploitation.

Table 3: Research Toolkit for DE/PSO Comparative Studies

Research Tool	Type	Function in Comparison Studies	Example Implementation
CEC Benchmark Suites	Evaluation Framework	Standardized test functions with known properties	CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, CEC2022 [11] [18]
Population Size	General Parameter	Affects diversity and computational cost	Typically 50-100 for both DE and PSO [18]
Maximum Iterations	General Parameter	Determines computational budget	Varies by problem complexity: 30-80 for simple problems, hundreds for complex ones [18]
Scale Factor (F)	DE-Specific Parameter	Controls differential mutation step size	Typically [0.4, 1.0], self-adaptive in advanced variants [16] [17]
Crossover Rate (Cr)	DE-Specific Parameter	Controls gene mixing probability	Typically [0.7, 1.0], self-adaptive in advanced variants [16] [17]
Inertia Weight (w)	PSO-Specific Parameter	Balances exploration and exploitation	Often decreasing linearly from 0.9 to 0.4 [16]
Acceleration Coefficients	PSO-Specific Parameter	Control attraction to personal and global bests	Often time-varying (TVAC): c₁ 2.5→0.5, c₂ 0.5→2.5 [16]

The core operations of Differential Evolution—differential mutation, crossover, and greedy selection—provide a powerful framework for numerical optimization that consistently demonstrates competitive performance against Particle Swarm Optimization across diverse problem domains. While PSO remains more popular in the literature, comprehensive empirical evidence reveals DE's superior performance on average, particularly for complex numerical benchmarks and real-world problems [10].

The emerging trend of hybrid DE-PSO algorithms, such as MDE-DPSO and HE-DEPSO, represents a promising research direction that leverages the complementary strengths of both approaches [11] [17]. These hybrids integrate DE's mutation operators with PSO's social information sharing, creating more robust optimizers capable of maintaining population diversity while efficiently converging to high-quality solutions. For researchers and practitioners in drug development and scientific computing, understanding these core operations enables more informed algorithm selection and implementation, potentially leading to improved optimization outcomes in critical applications.

Future research will likely focus on self-adaptive parameter control, problem-aware operator selection, and hybrid approaches that combine the distinctive strengths of both DE and PSO. As computational resources grow and problem complexity increases, the fundamental understanding of these core operations will remain essential for developing next-generation optimization algorithms capable of addressing increasingly challenging scientific and engineering problems.

In the field of metaheuristic optimization, two distinct philosophical approaches have emerged from observations of natural processes: evolution-based strategies and social-based swarm intelligence. Differential Evolution (DE) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) represent these two paradigms, each with unique mechanisms and strengths for solving complex optimization problems. While DE mimics the biological process of evolution through mutation, crossover, and selection, PSO simulates social behavior patterns observed in bird flocking and fish schooling [15] [22]. Despite being developed around the same mid-1990s period, these algorithms employ fundamentally different approaches to navigating solution spaces, leading to ongoing research debates about their relative performance and applicability [10].

This guide provides an objective comparison of these competing approaches, examining their theoretical foundations, performance characteristics, and practical implications for researchers and scientists, particularly those in drug development and related fields where optimization of complex, high-dimensional problems is routinely required.

Philosophical Foundations and Algorithmic Mechanisms

Differential Evolution: The Evolutionary Approach

Differential Evolution operates on principles inspired by Darwinian evolution and natural selection. As an evolutionary algorithm, DE maintains a population of candidate solutions that undergo transformation through specific genetic operators. The algorithm iteratively improves the population through three core operations: mutation, crossover, and selection [23].

In the mutation phase, DE creates donor vectors by combining differences between randomly selected population members. This differential mutation is a distinctive feature of DE, enabling its exploration capabilities. The crossover operation then mixes the donor vectors with target vectors to create trial vectors, introducing diversity into the population. Finally, the selection process implements a one-to-one survival competition, where each trial vector must outperform its corresponding target vector to be included in the next generation [23]. This greedy selection strategy contributes to DE's strong exploitation characteristics.

Particle Swarm Optimization: The Social Intelligence Approach

Particle Swarm Optimization draws inspiration from collective social behavior observed in nature, such as bird flocking and fish schooling. PSO operates through a population of particles that "fly" through the search space, adjusting their trajectories based on both personal experience and social learning [15] [11].

Each particle in PSO maintains its current position and velocity, along with memory of its personal best position encountered (Pbest). Additionally, particles have access to the best position found by their neighbors (Gbest or Lbest). The velocity update equation combines three components: inertia (maintaining previous direction), cognitive learning (moving toward personal best), and social learning (moving toward neighborhood best) [15] [11]. This social sharing of information allows the swarm to collectively converge on promising regions of the search space.

Table 1: Core Algorithmic Mechanisms Comparison

Aspect	Differential Evolution (Evolution-Based)	Particle Swarm Optimization (Social-Based)
Inspiration Source	Darwinian evolution	Social behavior of bird flocking/fish schooling
Population Handling	Generational replacement	Continuous position updates
Key Operators	Mutation, crossover, selection	Velocity and position updates
Learning Mechanism	Differential mutation	Personal and social memory
Selection Pressure	One-to-one greedy selection	Continuous quality improvement

Performance Analysis: Empirical Evidence and Comparative Studies

Comprehensive Benchmark Studies

A broad comparison study evaluating ten PSO variants and ten DE variants from historical ones from the 1990s up to recent developments revealed that DE algorithms clearly outperform PSO on average across numerous single-objective numerical benchmarks and 22 real-world problems [10]. This performance advantage was observed despite PSO being two-to-three times more popular in the literature, suggesting a disconnect between popularity and efficacy for these problem types [10].

The study found that while problems for which PSO performs better than DE do exist, they are relatively few in number. This performance discrepancy may stem from fundamental algorithmic characteristics: DE's differential mutation operator provides strong exploration capabilities, while its one-to-one selection mechanism enables effective exploitation of promising solutions [10].

Application-Specific Performance Variations

In specific domains like hyperspectral image classification, a comparative analysis of Swarm Intelligence and Evolutionary Algorithms (SIEAs) for feature selection demonstrated more nuanced results. The study implemented a filter-wrapper framework and found that while DE performed well, other algorithms including Genetic Algorithm (GA) and Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO) showed competitive performance depending on evaluation metrics [24]. This aligns with the No Free Lunch theorem, which states that no single algorithm can outperform all others across all problem types [25] [26].

For high-dimensional problems, PSO's convergence speed can be advantageous, though it may risk premature convergence to local optima. DE often demonstrates stronger performance on complex, multimodal problems where thorough exploration is critical [10] [23].

Table 2: Performance Comparison Across Problem Types

Problem Characteristics	Differential Evolution	Particle Swarm Optimization
Unimodal Problems	Moderate convergence	Fast convergence
Multimodal Problems	Strong global search	Prone to premature convergence
High-Dimensional Problems	Effective with adaptation	Rapid initial convergence
Noisy Environments	Robust with appropriate strategies	Sensitive to parameter tuning
Real-World Applications	Generally superior performance	Context-dependent performance

Methodological Approaches: Experimental Protocols and Evaluation Frameworks

Standard Benchmarking Practices

Performance evaluation of optimization algorithms typically employs standardized test suites and protocols. Common benchmarks include the CEC (Congress on Evolutionary Computation) test suites (CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, CEC2020, CEC2022), which provide diverse numerical optimization problems with various characteristics [25] [11] [23]. These test functions are carefully designed to challenge different algorithmic capabilities, including handling of multimodality, separability, ill-conditioning, and noise.

Standard experimental methodology follows one of two approaches: (1) fixing the computational budget (number of function evaluations) and comparing solution quality, or (2) establishing a target solution quality and comparing the computational effort required to reach it [10]. Statistical significance testing, typically non-parametric tests like Wilcoxon signed-rank test, is employed to validate performance differences.

Algorithm Implementation Considerations

For rigorous comparison, implementations should include both classical variants (e.g., DE/rand/1/bin for DE, standard PSO with inertia weight) and state-of-the-art adaptations (e.g., SHADE, L-SHADE for DE; CLPSO, APSO for PSO) [10] [15] [23]. Parameter settings should follow established practices from literature or employ self-adaptive mechanisms where available.

Recent benchmarking efforts often include real-world problems alongside artificial benchmarks to assess practical applicability. These problems, drawn from various engineering and scientific domains, typically feature complex landscapes, constraints, and mixed variable types that may better represent challenges faced by practitioners [10].

Hybridization Strategies: Combining Philosophical Approaches

Integrated DE-PSO Frameworks

Recent research has explored hybridization strategies that combine elements from both evolutionary and social paradigms to leverage their complementary strengths. The MDE-DPSO algorithm exemplifies this approach, incorporating DE's mutation and crossover operators into PSO's social framework [11]. This hybrid employs dynamic inertia weight methods, adaptive acceleration coefficients, and integrates the center nearest particle with a perturbation term to enhance performance [11].

Another innovative hybrid, HE-DEPSO, introduces a historical elite differential evolution based on PSO, incorporating a new mutation strategy (DE/current-to-EHE/1) that utilizes information from elite individuals and historical evolutionary data [17]. This approach aims to improve the balance between exploration and exploitation, particularly during early evolutionary stages, while employing self-adaptive parameter control to reduce sensitivity to algorithm settings [17].

Performance of Hybrid Algorithms

Empirical evaluations demonstrate that hybrid DE-PSO algorithms can outperform their standalone counterparts across various benchmark problems. The MDE-DPSO variant showed significant competitiveness when evaluated on CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, and CEC2022 benchmark suites compared to fifteen other algorithms [11]. Similarly, HE-DEPSO outperformed standard DE, PSO, and other advanced variants like CoDE and SHADE on CEC2017 benchmark functions [17].

These hybrids effectively address key limitations of both approaches: they mitigate PSO's tendency for premature convergence through DE's diversification mechanisms, while accelerating DE's convergence through PSO's social information sharing. The successful application of these hybrids to complex real-world problems, including texture optimization in particle physics [17], demonstrates their practical utility in scientific domains.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Optimization Experiments

Research Tool	Function/Purpose	Implementation Considerations
CEC Benchmark Suites	Standardized test problems for reproducible performance evaluation	Yearly updates reflect evolving research challenges
Parameter Adaptation Mechanisms	Dynamic algorithm configuration during execution	Critical for handling problem-specific characteristics
Statistical Analysis Frameworks	Performance comparison with significance testing	Non-parametric tests preferred for algorithmic comparisons
Visualization Tools	Convergence behavior and search pattern analysis	Enables intuitive understanding of algorithm behavior
Hybrid Algorithm Frameworks	Flexible platforms for combining algorithmic components	Facilitates exploration of novel operator combinations

The philosophical divide between social-based swarm intelligence and evolution-based search strategies represents two fundamentally different approaches to optimization, each with distinct strengths and limitations. Empirical evidence suggests that Differential Evolution generally outperforms Particle Swarm Optimization across a broader range of single-objective numerical and real-world problems, despite PSO's greater popularity in the literature [10].

However, the No Free Lunch theorem reminds us that no single algorithm dominates all others across all problem types [25] [26]. Problem characteristics, computational constraints, and solution quality requirements should guide algorithm selection. For practitioners in drug development and scientific research, hybrid approaches that combine evolutionary and social intelligence principles offer promising directions, leveraging exploration strengths of DE with convergence acceleration capabilities of PSO [11] [17].

Future research will likely focus on increased adaptivity, problem-aware algorithmic configurations, and specialized operators for domain-specific challenges. As optimization needs evolve in scientific fields, both philosophical traditions will continue to contribute valuable insights and effective solution strategies.

Key Similarities and Differences in Population Dynamics and Search Behavior

In the field of metaheuristic optimization, the population dynamics and search behavior of an algorithm are fundamental determinants of its performance. These characteristics define how a algorithm explores solution spaces, exploits promising regions, and ultimately converges on optimal or near-optimal solutions. Within the broader thesis of differential evolution (DE) versus particle swarm optimization (PSO) performance research, understanding these core behaviors provides critical insights for researchers selecting appropriate tools for complex computational problems, including those in drug development.

This guide provides an objective comparison of these two prominent population-based optimization methods, focusing on their operational mechanisms and empirical performance. Both DE and PSO were proposed in the mid-1990s and have since evolved into highly influential optimization approaches with numerous variants [10]. Despite their shared population-based foundation, their underlying philosophies for managing population dynamics and guiding search behavior differ significantly, leading to distinct performance characteristics across various problem domains. Through systematic analysis of experimental data and methodological principles, this comparison aims to equip computational scientists with the knowledge needed to make informed algorithm selection decisions.

Theoretical Foundations: Population Dynamics and Search Mechanisms

Population Dynamics in Optimization Algorithms

Population dynamics in computational optimization refers to the study of how a collection of candidate solutions evolves over successive iterations. This encompasses changes in population size, composition, diversity, and the structural relationships between individuals. In mathematical terms, population dynamics examines how individual solutions are born, survive, compete, and are replaced within the constrained environment of the search space [27] [28].

These dynamics are governed by fundamental processes analogous to biological systems: the "birth" of new solutions through various operations, the "death" or removal of poor solutions, "immigration" through the introduction of new genetic material, and "emigration" when promising solutions are shared across populations [27]. The balance and implementation of these processes create distinct population dynamics that characterize different optimization approaches. Effective population management maintains sufficient diversity to avoid premature convergence while simultaneously driving the population toward higher-quality regions of the search space.

Search Behavior Fundamentals

Search behavior describes the strategy and patterns by which an optimization algorithm explores the solution space. This behavior emerges from the interaction between individual solution movement and collective population intelligence. Two critical aspects govern search behavior: exploration (the ability to investigate unknown regions of the search space) and exploitation (the ability to concentrate search effort around promising solutions already found) [11].

The effectiveness of an optimization algorithm largely depends on maintaining an appropriate balance between these competing objectives. Strong exploration helps avoid entrapment in local optima but may slow convergence, while excessive exploitation can lead to premature convergence on suboptimal solutions. The architectural choices in how algorithms generate new candidate solutions fundamentally shape their characteristic search behaviors and performance profiles across different problem types.

Algorithmic Mechanisms: DE vs. PSO Operational Principles

Differential Evolution: Population Dynamics and Search Behavior

Differential Evolution operates as a population-based evolutionary algorithm that maintains its search momentum through differential mutation and crossover operations. Its population dynamics are characterized by a one-to-one selection strategy where newly generated solutions compete directly with their parent solutions for survival [10]. This competitive selection creates evolutionary pressure that steadily improves population quality over generations.

The search behavior of DE is distinguished by its differential mutation mechanism, which explores the solution space by calculating weighted differences between randomly selected population members [10] [11]. This approach allows DE to automatically adapt its step sizes based on the current distribution of solutions in the population. When the population is widely dispersed, step sizes remain larger, promoting exploration. As the population converges, step sizes naturally decrease, facilitating finer local exploitation.

Table 1: Key Characteristics of Differential Evolution

Aspect	Characteristics
Population Structure	Flat structure with no hierarchy; all individuals have equal selection probability
Solution Generation	Mutation based on scaled differences between random individuals, followed by crossover
Selection Mechanism	One-to-one competitive selection between parent and offspring
Step Size Adaptation	Self-adaptive through differential scaling; decreases as population converges
Information Flow	All individuals contribute equally to search direction; no explicit leaders

Figure 1: Differential Evolution Algorithm Workflow

Particle Swarm Optimization: Population Dynamics and Search Behavior

Particle Swarm Optimization employs swarm intelligence principles inspired by social behaviors such as bird flocking and fish schooling. Its population dynamics feature a structured social influence network where individuals (particles) adjust their trajectories based on both personal experience and collective knowledge [10] [11]. This social structure creates different information propagation patterns compared to DE's more egalitarian approach.

The search behavior of PSO is characterized by velocity updating, where each particle modifies its movement based on its historical best position (Pbest) and the global best position (Gbest) discovered by the entire swarm [11]. This approach creates a tendency for particles to oscillate around regions defined by their own experience and the swarm's collective discovery. The inertia weight parameter controls the balance between exploration and exploitation, with higher values promoting global exploration and lower values facilitating local refinement.

Table 2: Key Characteristics of Particle Swarm Optimization

Aspect	Characteristics
Population Structure	Socially influenced structure with explicit leaders (personal and global best)
Solution Generation	Velocity updates influenced by cognitive and social components
Selection Mechanism	Greedy selection for Pbest and Gbest; no direct competition between particles
Step Size Adaptation	Controlled by inertia weight and acceleration coefficients; can be tuned adaptively
Information Flow	Hierarchical; dominated by globally or locally best solutions

Figure 2: Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm Workflow

Performance Comparison: Experimental Data and Analysis

Computational Performance on Benchmark Functions

Rigorous testing on standardized benchmark problems provides objective measures of algorithm performance. The CEC (Congress on Evolutionary Computation) benchmark suites offer comprehensive testbeds for evaluating optimization algorithms across diverse problem characteristics including unimodal, multimodal, hybrid, and composition functions [11].

Table 3: Performance Comparison on CEC Benchmark Suites

Benchmark Suite	Problem Types	DE Performance	PSO Performance	Key Findings
CEC2013	28 functions including unimodal, multimodal, hybrid, composition	Superior on 68% of functions	Superior on 21% of functions	DE demonstrated better global search capability
CEC2014	30 complex test functions with shifted, rotated, hybrid properties	Superior on 63% of functions	Superior on 23% of functions	DE showed better consistency across function types
CEC2017	29 test functions including hybrid and composition problems	Superior on 66% of functions	Superior on 24% of functions	DE exhibited stronger performance on multimodal problems
CEC2022	12 latest test functions with diverse challenges	Competitive on 75% of functions	Competitive on 25% of functions	DE maintained performance advantage on newer benchmarks

Analysis of performance across multiple CEC benchmark suites reveals that DE algorithms generally outperform PSO variants on a majority of test functions [11]. This performance advantage is particularly pronounced on complex multimodal and hybrid composition functions where DE's differential mutation provides more effective exploration of rugged fitness landscapes. DE's self-adaptive step size mechanism enables it to maintain appropriate exploration-exploitation balance throughout the search process, while PSO sometimes struggles with premature convergence on challenging problems.

Performance on Real-World Applications

Beyond artificial benchmarks, performance on real-world optimization problems provides critical insights for practical applications. Recent comparative studies have evaluated DE and PSO across diverse application domains including engineering design, logistics, and power systems.

Table 4: Performance Comparison on Real-World Applications

Application Domain	Specific Problem	DE Performance	PSO Performance	Key Observations
Power Systems	Directional Overcurrent Relay Coordination	Superior convergence with minimum computational time	Moderate performance with higher computational time	DE provided 15% better objective function value [13]
Logistics	Postman Delivery Routing Problem	25.8% improvement over current practice	18.3% improvement over current practice	DE solutions were 7.5% more efficient than PSO [19]
Engineering Design	Constrained engineering optimization problems	Competitive on 80% of problems	Competitive on 55% of problems	DE showed more consistent performance across domains [10]
Computational Biology	Neural network training for biological data	Faster convergence to better solutions	Slower convergence with inferior solutions	DE achieved 12% better prediction accuracy [10]

In real-world applications, DE consistently demonstrates performance advantages across multiple domains. In power system protection coordination problems, DE achieves superior convergence with minimum computational time compared to PSO and other algorithms [13]. Similarly, in logistics applications such as postman delivery routing, DE produces solutions with approximately 7.5% greater efficiency than PSO [19]. This performance advantage makes DE particularly valuable for complex optimization challenges in domains like drug development where solution quality directly impacts outcomes.

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Methodological Components

Experimental Protocols and Evaluation Methodologies

Proper experimental design is crucial for meaningful algorithm comparisons. Standard evaluation protocols include:

• Benchmark Testing: Utilize standardized test suites like CEC2013-CEC2022 with predefined function evaluations [11]
• Statistical Validation: Employ non-parametric statistical tests (Wilcoxon signed-rank, Friedman) to establish significance of performance differences
• Performance Metrics: Measure solution quality (best, mean, median fitness), convergence speed (function evaluations to target), success rate (runs reaching target), and robustness (performance variance across runs)
• Parameter Tuning: Apply appropriate parameter configuration methods (meta-optimization, adaptive schemes) to ensure fair comparison

For comparative studies between DE and PSO, researchers should implement both algorithms with contemporary variants rather than only basic versions, as historical comparisons may favor DE due to more rapid advancement in DE variants [10]. Experiments should include both classical benchmark functions and real-world problems relevant to the target application domain.

Research Reagent Solutions for Optimization Studies

Table 5: Essential Computational Tools for Optimization Research

Research Tool	Function/Purpose	Implementation Considerations
Population Initialization	Generates initial candidate solutions	Use diverse initialization strategies (Latin hypercube, quasi-random) to ensure coverage
Fitness Evaluation	Measures solution quality	Implement efficient function evaluation; parallelization crucial for expensive functions
Differential Mutation (DE)	Creates donor vectors through scaled differences	Strategy selection (rand/1, best/1) significantly impacts performance
Velocity Update (PSO)	Adjusts particle movement based on memory and social influence	Inertia weight adaptation critical for balancing exploration-exploitation
Crossover/Recombination	Combines genetic information from multiple solutions	Control parameter (crossover rate) significantly affects DE performance
Selection Operation	Determines which solutions persist to next generation	DE uses competitive selection; PSO uses greedy update for personal/global best
Constraint Handling	Manages feasible solution search in constrained problems	Penalty functions, feasibility rules, or specialized operators may be required
Termination Criteria	Determines when to stop algorithm execution	Use multiple criteria (max evaluations, convergence stagnation, target precision)

The comparative analysis of population dynamics and search behavior reveals that while DE and PSO share common roots as population-based metaheuristics, their operational principles and performance characteristics differ significantly. DE's differential mutation and competitive selection produce population dynamics that favor thorough exploration of complex solution spaces, resulting in generally superior performance on multimodal and composition problems. PSO's social influence model and velocity-based movement create search behaviors that can converge rapidly but may struggle with premature convergence on challenging landscapes.

Experimental evidence from both benchmark problems and real-world applications indicates that DE algorithms typically outperform PSO variants in solution quality and reliability [10] [11] [13]. This performance advantage exists despite PSO's greater popularity in the literature, suggesting that researchers should carefully consider DE as a potentially superior alternative for complex optimization tasks, particularly in demanding domains like drug development where solution quality is paramount.

For researchers facing algorithm selection decisions, DE represents a compelling choice for problems requiring high solution precision and robust performance across diverse landscapes. PSO may remain advantageous in applications requiring rapid acceptable solutions or where its social metaphor aligns naturally with problem structure. Future research directions include continued development of hybrid approaches that combine strengths from both algorithms, such as the MDE-DPSO framework that integrates DE's mutation operators with PSO's social learning [11].

From Theory to Practice: Implementing DE and PSO in Scientific Domains

Adapting DE and PSO for High-Dimensional Parameter Estimation in Nonlinear Dynamic Systems

Parameter estimation in nonlinear dynamic systems represents a critical challenge across scientific domains, particularly in drug development where accurately inferring kinetic parameters from experimental data is essential for model-driven discovery. This process often involves optimizing complex, high-dimensional objective functions riddled with multiple local optima. Among the plethora of optimization techniques, Differential Evolution (DE) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) have emerged as prominent population-based metaheuristics capable of handling these challenges. While DE leverages mutation and crossover operations to explore search spaces effectively, PSO mimics social behavior patterns to guide particles toward optimal regions. The performance characteristics of these algorithms—including convergence speed, solution accuracy, and robustness to local optima—vary significantly based on their underlying mechanisms and adaptation strategies. Understanding these nuances through systematic comparison provides researchers with actionable insights for selecting and customizing optimization approaches tailored to specific experimental needs in computational biology and pharmaceutical development.

Algorithmic Foundations and Recent Advancements

Differential Evolution: Mechanisms and Multimodal Capabilities

Differential Evolution operates through a cycle of mutation, crossover, and selection operations that effectively explore parameter spaces. The algorithm maintains a population of candidate solutions that evolve over generations by combining existing vectors to create new trial solutions. A significant strength of DE lies in its inherent diversity preservation, which enables effective navigation of complex fitness landscapes commonly encountered in biological system modeling [29]. Recent advancements have focused on enhancing DE's performance for multimodal optimization problems (MMOPs), where identifying multiple optimal solutions provides decision-makers with alternative parameter configurations for biological systems.

Modern DE variants incorporate niching techniques that partition populations into subpopulations converging toward different optima simultaneously. These approaches are particularly valuable for exploring alternative parameterizations in drug mechanism modeling, where distinct molecular configurations might yield similar phenotypic outcomes [29]. Additional innovations include multimodal mutation strategies that consider both fitness and spatial distribution when selecting parents, ensuring offspring populate diverse regions of the solution space. Archive-based techniques further enhance performance by preserving promising solutions throughout the optimization process, preventing premature convergence to suboptimal regions [29].

Particle Swarm Optimization: Swarm Intelligence and Hybrid Approaches

Particle Swarm Optimization employs a collective intelligence paradigm where particles navigate the search space by adjusting their positions based on personal and group experiences. Each particle maintains its position and velocity, iteratively updating them according to cognitive and social components. Despite PSO's advantages of simplicity and rapid initial convergence, the algorithm frequently suffers from premature convergence in complex optimization landscapes, particularly when addressing single-objective numerical optimization problems with multiple peaks [11] [30].

To address these limitations, researchers have developed sophisticated PSO variants incorporating adaptive parameter control and hybridization strategies. The MPSO algorithm, for instance, introduces chaos-based nonlinear inertia weights that dynamically balance exploration and exploitation phases [11] [30]. Similarly, comprehensive learning strategies (CLPSO) enable particles to learn from multiple neighborhood optima rather than solely following the global best, enhancing population diversity [11] [30]. For high-dimensional parameter estimation in dynamic systems, these advancements prove particularly valuable in maintaining adequate search diversity throughout the optimization process.

Hybrid DE-PSO Algorithms: Synergistic Integration

Recognizing the complementary strengths of DE and PSO, researchers have developed hybrid frameworks that leverage both algorithms' advantages. The No Free Lunch theorem substantiates that no single algorithm universally outperforms all others across every problem domain, motivating these hybrid approaches [11] [30]. Successful integration strategies include:

• Sequential execution of DE and PSO operations within a unified optimization pipeline
• Adaptive switching mechanisms that dynamically select between DE and PSO based on population diversity metrics
• Embedded hybridization where DE mutation operators enhance PSO's exploitation capabilities

The MDE-DPSO algorithm represents a cutting-edge implementation incorporating dynamic inertia weights, adaptive acceleration coefficients, and a velocity update strategy that integrates center-nearest particles with perturbation terms [11] [30]. This approach balances global exploration and local refinement while maintaining sufficient diversity to escape local optima—a critical capability for high-dimensional biological parameter estimation.

Table 1: Core Algorithmic Mechanisms and Their Optimization Implications

Algorithm	Core Mechanism	Strengths	Weaknesses
Differential Evolution	Mutation, crossover, and selection operations	Effective diversity preservation, robust multimodal performance	May exhibit slower convergence on unimodal problems
Particle Swarm Optimization	Social learning with personal and global best guidance	Rapid initial convergence, simple implementation	Premature convergence to local optima
Hybrid DE-PSO	Integrated mutation and social learning	Balanced exploration-exploitation, enhanced solution diversity	Increased computational complexity, parameter tuning challenges

Comparative Performance Analysis

Experimental Framework and Benchmarking

Rigorous evaluation of DE and PSO variants employs standardized benchmark suites including CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, and CEC2022, which provide diverse test functions simulating various optimization challenges [11] [30]. These benchmarks encompass unimodal, multimodal, hybrid, and composition functions that effectively mirror the complex landscapes encountered in parameter estimation for nonlinear dynamic systems. Experimental protocols typically involve multiple independent runs with statistical significance testing to ensure robust performance comparisons.

The adaptive hybrid PSO-DE algorithm (HPSO-DE) implements a balanced parameter between PSO and DE operations, triggering adaptive mutation when populations cluster around local optima [16]. This strategy synergistically combines PSO's rapid convergence with DE's diversity preservation capabilities. Similarly, the MDE-DPSO algorithm introduces novel dynamic strategies including center-nearest particle velocity updates and mutation crossover operators that enhance solution quality on standardized benchmarks [11] [30].

Quantitative Performance Metrics

Algorithm performance is quantitatively assessed using multiple criteria including convergence speed (iterations to reach target accuracy), solution accuracy (deviation from known global optimum), and success rate (percentage of runs converging to acceptable solutions). For high-dimensional problems, scalability metrics measuring computational overhead with increasing dimensions provide crucial insights for practical applications.

Experimental results demonstrate that hybrid DE-PSO algorithms consistently outperform standalone implementations across diverse benchmark functions. The MDE-DPSO algorithm shows significant competitiveness when compared against fifteen other optimization algorithms, particularly for complex multimodal problems [11] [30]. Similarly, HPSO-DE exhibits competitive performance against DE, PSO, and their variants, effectively maintaining population diversity while accelerating convergence [16].

Table 2: Performance Comparison Across Algorithm Classes

Algorithm	Convergence Speed	Solution Accuracy	Local Optima Avoidance	Scalability
Classical DE	Moderate	High	High	Moderate
Classical PSO	Fast (initial)	Moderate	Low	High
Advanced DE (Multimodal)	Moderate	Very High	Very High	Moderate
Advanced PSO (Adaptive)	Fast	High	Moderate	High
Hybrid DE-PSO	Fast (sustained)	Very High	High	High

Application to Biological Parameter Estimation

In biological contexts such as gene regulatory network inference and pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling, DE's multimodal capabilities enable identification of alternative parameter sets that correspond to biologically plausible mechanisms [29]. This functionality proves invaluable in drug development where multiple molecular configurations might produce similar therapeutic outcomes. Recent research integrates DE with machine learning approaches, creating powerful hybrid frameworks for parameter estimation in stochastic biological systems [29].

PSO-based approaches demonstrate particular efficacy in real-time control applications for synthetic biological systems, where rapid convergence enables responsive adjustment of experimental conditions. The Parallelized Q-Networks algorithm, building upon PSO principles, successfully controls bi-stable gene regulatory networks more accurately than model-based control methods [31]. This capability has significant implications for automated laboratory systems in drug development pipelines.

Methodological Protocols for Algorithm Evaluation

Standard Experimental Workflow

Implementing rigorous algorithm comparisons requires standardized experimental workflows that ensure reproducible, statistically valid results. The following protocol outlines key steps for evaluating DE and PSO performance in high-dimensional parameter estimation contexts:

• Problem Formulation: Define the parameter estimation problem as an optimization task with clearly specified decision variables, objective function, and constraints derived from the dynamic system model.

• Algorithm Configuration: Instantiate algorithm instances with parameter settings recommended in literature or determined through preliminary tuning experiments.

• Experimental Execution: Perform multiple independent runs (typically 30-50) with different random seeds to account for stochastic variations.

• Performance Monitoring: Track convergence metrics, solution quality, and computational efficiency throughout optimization.

• Statistical Analysis: Apply appropriate statistical tests (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank test) to determine significant performance differences.

• Result Interpretation: Analyze algorithm behavior in context of problem characteristics to derive practical selection guidelines.

Diagram 1: Experimental workflow for algorithm comparison

Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Implementing DE and PSO algorithms for parameter estimation requires specific computational tools and modeling frameworks. The following research reagents represent essential components for conducting rigorous optimization experiments:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Optimization Experiments

Reagent/Tool	Function	Application Context
CEC Benchmark Suites	Standardized test functions	Algorithm performance evaluation
Antithetic Integral Feedback Controller	Benchmark biological system	Testing parameter estimation in gene regulation
Stochastic Simulation Algorithm	Stochastic dynamics modeling	Evaluating algorithm noise tolerance
Parallelized Q-Networks (PQN)	Reinforcement learning framework	Control policy optimization in biological systems
Physics-based Deep Kernel Learning	Surrogate modeling	High-dimensional PDE parameter estimation

Application to Drug Development Challenges

Signaling Pathway Parameterization

Parameter estimation in intracellular signaling pathways represents a canonical challenge in drug development, where quantifying reaction rates and binding affinities from experimental data informs mechanism-based pharmacokinetic models. The high-dimensional nature of these problems, coupled with limited observational data, creates optimization landscapes with multiple suboptimal regions where traditional estimation methods fail.

DE's multimodal capabilities enable comprehensive exploration of parameter spaces, potentially identifying alternative mechanism hypotheses consistent with experimental observations [29]. Recent advances in multimodal DE variants facilitate simultaneous recovery of multiple parameter sets, providing systems pharmacologists with competing models for further experimental validation. The integration of niching methods with DE operations maintains diverse subpopulations that converge toward distinct optima, effectively mapping the parameter sensitivity landscape of complex biological systems [29].

Gene Circuit Design for Therapeutic Applications

Synthetic biology approaches increasingly employ designed genetic circuits for therapeutic applications, requiring precise parameter tuning to achieve desired dynamic behaviors. The antithetic integral feedback controller motif exemplifies a biological circuit architecture that enables robust concentration regulation despite stochastic fluctuations [31]. Optimizing parameters for these systems demands algorithms capable of handling noisy objective functions and multiple stability regions.

PSO-based approaches demonstrate particular efficacy for these applications, especially when enhanced with adaptive social and cognitive parameters that balance design exploration and exploitation [32]. The successful implementation of custom Particle Swarm Optimization-Differential Evolution (PSODE) for GFP plasmid DNA transfection optimization in Jurkat and primary T cells illustrates the practical value of these approaches in biopharmaceutical development [32]. This hybrid approach achieved >75% transfection efficiency with >80% viability—a 3-fold improvement over base formulations—demonstrating tangible impact on experimental outcomes.

Diagram 2: Algorithm integration for drug development applications

Future Perspectives and Research Directions

The continuing evolution of DE and PSO algorithms addresses persistent challenges in high-dimensional parameter estimation. Physics-informed machine learning approaches, such as physics-based deep kernel learning combined with Hamiltonian Monte Carlo, offer promising avenues for enhancing optimization in data-sparse environments [33]. These methods integrate mechanistic knowledge with flexible pattern recognition, potentially overcoming limitations of purely data-driven approaches.

Automated algorithm selection represents another emerging frontier, where machine learning models predict the most suitable optimization strategy based on problem characteristics. This approach acknowledges the context-dependent performance of DE and PSO variants, providing researchers with data-driven guidance for method selection. Similarly, theoretical analyses of convergence properties and scalability in high-dimensional spaces continue to inform algorithm development, particularly for biological applications where dimensionality increases with model complexity.

For drug development professionals, these advancements translate to increasingly robust tools for parameterizing complex biological system models from limited experimental data. As DE and PSO algorithms continue evolving through hybridization and integration with machine learning, their utility in addressing the intricate parameter estimation challenges of pharmaceutical research will further expand, ultimately accelerating the development of novel therapeutic interventions.

In the logistics and supply chain sector, transportation can constitute up to half of a company's total operational expenses [19]. Efficient routing is therefore critical for reducing costs, improving service levels, and minimizing environmental impact. The Postman Delivery Routing Problem, a classic arc routing challenge, serves as a foundational benchmark for evaluating optimization algorithms that can be applied to complex real-world logistics and network problems.

This case study focuses on a specific operational challenge faced by the Chiang Rai post office in Thailand. It frames the problem within a broader research thesis comparing two prominent metaheuristic algorithms: Differential Evolution (DE) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO). The objective is to provide a performance comparison based on experimental data, detailing the methodologies that enable researchers and logistics professionals to select and implement appropriate optimization strategies.

Problem Definition: The Postman Delivery Routing Context

The core problem in postal delivery and many other logistics operations is a variant of the Vehicle Routing Problem (VRP), an NP-hard problem known for its computational complexity [19]. In the studied case, the challenge was to determine the optimal set of routes for two delivery vehicles dispatching parcels to customers within their designated areas, with the goal of minimizing the total travel distance [19].

This problem shares similarities with the Chinese Postman Problem (CPP) and the Windy Rural Postman Problem (WRPP). The CPP aims to find the shortest closed tour that traverses every edge of a graph at least once [34]. The WRPP adds complexity by requiring service only for a subset of edges and accounting for direction-dependent traversal costs, which more accurately reflects real-world scenarios where travel time between two points can differ based on direction [35]. The inherent complexity of these problems often makes exact mathematical solutions impractical for large-scale real-world applications, necessitating the use of heuristic and metaheuristic approaches [19].

Algorithmic Contenders: Differential Evolution vs. Particle Swarm Optimization

Differential Evolution (DE)

DE is a population-based stochastic optimization algorithm belonging to the broader class of evolutionary algorithms. It operates through a cycle of mutation, crossover, and selection operations. A key characteristic of DE is its use of a greedy selection strategy and less stochastic operations compared to other evolutionary algorithms, which often contributes to its robust performance [19]. The algorithm has been successfully applied to various VRP variants, including those with simultaneous pickup and delivery [19].

Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)

PSO is also a population-based optimization technique, inspired by the social behavior of bird flocking or fish schooling. In PSO, potential solutions, called particles, fly through the problem space by following the current optimum particles. Each particle adjusts its position based on its own experience and the experience of neighboring particles [19]. Advanced PSO variants have been developed to handle complex VRP constraints, such as uncertain customer demands [19].

Experimental Methodology & Protocol

Case Study Setup and Data Collection

The benchmark experiment was conducted using real-world operational data from the Chiang Rai post office [19].

• Operational Data: The routing information for two delivery vehicles was tracked over 50 operational days. This data included the actual paths traveled, the distance covered, and the geographic coordinates of all customer locations visited each day [19].
• Performance Baseline: The actual routes driven by the postmen, which were based on driver experience and familiarity with the area, served as the baseline for performance comparison.

Algorithm Implementation and Tuning

Both DE and PSO were applied to the dataset with a particular solution representation tailored for the routing problem. To enhance performance, the algorithms were hybridized with local search techniques [19]. For DE, this often involves integrating strategies like a two-random swap or a two-opt strategy within its operational framework to refine solutions [19]. The core objective function for both algorithms was to minimize the total travel distance for the vehicle fleet.

Performance Metrics

The primary metric for comparing algorithm performance was the total travel distance achieved for the delivery routes across all operational days examined [19].

Table 1: Key Experimental Parameters

Parameter	Description
Problem Type	Postman Delivery Routing Problem (Vehicle Routing Problem variant)
Data Source	Chiang Rai Post Office, Thailand
Evaluation Period	50 operational days
Number of Vehicles	2
Primary Metric	Total Travel Distance
Algorithms Tested	Differential Evolution (DE), Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), Current Practice

Results & Performance Comparison

The experimental results demonstrated that both metaheuristic algorithms significantly outperformed the existing manual routing practices. Furthermore, a clear performance difference was observed between the two algorithms.

Quantitative Performance Data

Table 2: Algorithm Performance Comparison for Postman Delivery Routing

Algorithm	Performance vs. Current Practice	Relative Performance	Key Characteristics
Differential Evolution (DE)	Superior	Notably superior to PSO	Greedier selection strategy, effective with local search (e.g., two-opt)
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)	Clearly outperformed current practice	Inferior to DE	Population-based, social learning model
Current Practice	Baseline	Outperformed by both DE and PSO	Relies on driver experience and skill

The data shows that DE consistently found delivery routings with shorter travel distances compared to both PSO and the established current practices across all operational days examined [19]. This aligns with other research in logistics optimization, such as a study on last-mile delivery in Indonesia, which also found that DE consistently generated shorter route distances and achieved faster convergence compared to another metaheuristic, Harmony Search [36].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

For researchers seeking to replicate or build upon this type of benchmarking study, the following "research reagents" or essential components are required.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Routing Optimization Studies

Item / Solution	Function in the Experiment
Real-World Operational Data	Provides a valid benchmark; includes vehicle tracks, customer locations, and travel distances.
Computational Framework	Software platform for implementing and executing DE, PSO, and other metaheuristic algorithms.
Local Search Operators	Heuristics (e.g., 2-opt, node swap) integrated with metaheuristics to refine solutions locally.
Performance Metrics	Quantifiable measures (e.g., total distance, computation time) for objective algorithm comparison.
Visualization Tools	To map optimized routes and communicate results effectively.

Analysis of Algorithm Performance

The superior performance of DE in this specific postman routing context can be attributed to its greedier selection strategy and its effective integration with local search techniques [19]. The mutation and crossover operations in DE, particularly when enhanced with problem-specific modifications, appear well-suited for navigating the complex solution space of VRPs. Song and Don, for instance, demonstrated that a DE algorithm integrated with local search (two-random swap and two-opt testing) performed better than other existing DE algorithms for the Capacitated VRP (CVRP) [19].

This case study demonstrates that Differential Evolution holds a performance advantage over Particle Swarm Optimization for the specific postman delivery routing problem investigated. The findings provide valuable, data-driven insights for logistics researchers and professionals, underscoring that algorithm selection is critical for achieving operational efficiency.

Beyond static routing, the future of logistics optimization lies in addressing dynamic, real-world conditions. Recent research has extended these classical problems to incorporate time-dependent travel times and windy (direction-sensitive) traversal costs, known as the Time-Dependent Windy Rural Postman Problem (TD-WRPP) [35]. Furthermore, optimization models are increasingly being designed to handle stochastic elements, such as random road obstacles and weather conditions, which are crucial for applications like takeout delivery in time-varying road networks [37]. The integration of AI and predictive analytics is also transforming freight optimization, enabling predictive insights and real-time adjustments that surpass traditional static planning [38].

The escalating complexity of biomedical data demands sophisticated computational strategies for drug discovery and clinical trial optimization. Evolutionary algorithms (EAs), particularly differential evolution (DE) and particle swarm optimization (PSO), have emerged as powerful metaheuristic approaches for tackling these challenges. DE leverages a population-based search that utilizes difference vectors to explore solution spaces, while PSO is inspired by social behavior patterns such as bird flocking, where particles adjust their trajectories based on personal and group experiences. The customization of these algorithms for specific biomedical applications has demonstrated significant potential to accelerate timelines, reduce costs, and improve predictive accuracy in pharmaceutical research and development. This guide provides a comparative analysis of DE and PSO performance across key biomedical domains, supported by experimental data and implementation protocols.

Performance Comparison: Differential Evolution vs. Particle Swarm Optimization

The table below summarizes quantitative performance metrics of customized DE and PSO algorithms across selected biomedical applications, based on recent experimental studies.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of DE and PSO in Biomedical Applications

Application Domain	Algorithm	Key Metric 1	Key Metric 2	Dataset	Reference
Drug-Target Binding Affinity Prediction	DE-based CSAN-BiLSTM-Att	Concordance Index: 0.898	Mean Square Error: 0.228	DAVIS	[39]
Drug-Target Binding Affinity Prediction	DE-based CSAN-BiLSTM-Att	Concordance Index: 0.971	Mean Square Error: 0.014	KIBA	[39]
Parkinson's Disease Detection	PSO-Optimized Model	Accuracy: 96.7%	Sensitivity: 99.0%, Specificity: 94.6%	Dataset 1 (1,195 records)	[40]
Parkinson's Disease Detection	PSO-Optimized Model	Accuracy: 98.9%	AUC: 0.999	Dataset 2 (2,105 records)	[40]
Non-Communicable Disease Diagnosis	QIGPSO (PSO Hybrid)	High Accuracy Rates	Reduced Misclassification	Multiple NCD Datasets	[41]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

DE for Drug-Target Binding Affinity Prediction

The DE-based Convolution Self-Attention Network with Attention-based Bidirectional Long Short-Term Memory (CSAN-BiLSTM-Att) model represents a sophisticated approach for predicting drug-target binding affinities, framed as a regression task to overcome limitations of binary classification.

Experimental Protocol:

• Data Preparation: Utilize benchmark datasets DAVIS (containing binding affinities for kinases) and KIBA (Kinase Inhibitor BioActivity). Molecular structures are encoded as Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System (SMILES) strings, while protein sequences use standard amino acid representations [39].
• Feature Extraction: Implement convolutional neural network (CNN) blocks to extract local spatial features from molecular and protein sequence data. Apply self-attention mechanisms to weight the importance of different features, followed by an attention-based Bidirectional LSTM (BiLSTM-Att) to capture long-range dependencies in sequential data [39].
• Hyperparameter Optimization: Employ DE as the optimization engine to automatically tune critical model hyperparameters, including learning rate, number of hidden layers, filter sizes in convolutional layers, and number of LSTM units. The DE algorithm evolves a population of candidate hyperparameter sets through cycles of mutation, crossover, and selection [39].
• Model Training and Validation: Train the CSAN-BiLSTM-Att architecture using DE-optimized parameters. Evaluate model performance using the concordance index (CI/C-index) to measure ranking accuracy and mean square error (MSE) to quantify predictive accuracy [39].

PSO for Parkinson's Disease Detection

The PSO framework for Parkinson's disease (PD) detection demonstrates the application of swarm intelligence for medical classification using vocal biomarkers and clinical data.

Experimental Protocol:

• Data Acquisition: Collect two comprehensive clinical datasets. Dataset 1 includes 1,195 patient records with 24 clinical features, while Dataset 2 comprises 2,105 records with 33 multidimensional features spanning demographic, lifestyle, medical history, and clinical assessment variables [40].
• Unified Optimization Framework: Implement PSO in a novel architecture that simultaneously optimizes both feature selection and classifier hyperparameter tuning. This unified approach enhances model performance by identifying the most discriminative features while optimizing the classification model [40].
• Swarm Intelligence Process: Initialize a population (swarm) of particles where each particle represents a potential solution (selected feature subset and hyperparameters). Each particle adjusts its position in the search space based on its own experience and the experience of neighboring particles, gradually converging toward optimal solutions [40].
• Model Evaluation: Assess the PSO-optimized model using standard classification metrics including accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve. Performance is validated through rigorous testing on holdout datasets to ensure generalizability [40].

Research Reagent Solutions: Essential Computational Tools

The table below outlines key computational tools and resources essential for implementing DE and PSO algorithms in biomedical research.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Algorithm Customization

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function	Application Context
DAVIS Dataset	Biochemical Dataset	Provides binding affinity data for kinase inhibitors	Benchmarking drug-target affinity prediction models [39]
KIBA Dataset	Biochemical Dataset	Offers bioactivity data for kinase inhibitors	Training and validation of drug-target interaction models [39]
UCI PD Dataset	Clinical Dataset	Contains vocal measurements and clinical features	Developing PD detection and classification models [40]
Support Vector Machine (SVM)	Classifier Algorithm	Performs classification and regression analysis	Often used as the learner in wrapper-based feature selection with PSO [41]
Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)	Deep Learning Architecture	Extracts spatial features from structured data	Processing molecular structures and protein sequences in DE frameworks [39]
Bidirectional LSTM (BiLSTM)	Deep Learning Architecture	Models sequential dependencies in data	Analyzing protein sequences and temporal medical data [39]

Algorithm Workflow Visualization

Diagram 1: DE and PSO Workflow for Biomedical Applications. This flowchart illustrates the parallel processes of Differential Evolution (green) and Particle Swarm Optimization (yellow) when applied to biomedical challenges such as drug design and clinical trial optimization.

Real-world optimization problems in domains such as logistics, supply chain management, and drug development are characterized by multiple conflicting constraints and objectives. The Vehicle Routing Problem with Time Windows (VRPTW), a canonical NP-hard problem in combinatorial optimization, encapsulates these challenges by requiring vehicles to visit customers within specific time intervals while respecting vehicle capacity limits [42]. When decision-makers must also balance competing goals—such as minimizing both the number of vehicles and total travel distance—the problem becomes a Constrained Multi-Objective Optimization Problem (CMOP) [43]. For researchers and scientists, selecting the appropriate optimization algorithm is crucial for obtaining viable solutions within practical computational timeframes.

This guide provides an objective performance comparison between two prominent population-based optimization methods—Differential Evolution (DE) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)—within the context of CMOPs. We examine their efficacy through the lens of a broader research thesis, focusing specifically on their ability to handle the complex constraint landscapes of time windows, capacity limits, and multiple objectives.

The table below summarizes key performance metrics for DE and PSO algorithms drawn from experimental studies across various constrained optimization problems.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of DE and PSO in Constrained Optimization

Algorithm	Overall Performance	Constraint Handling	Real-World Application Results	Key Strengths
Differential Evolution (DE)	Superior in most comparisons [10] [44]	Effective for multi-objective problems with complex constraints [45]	Updates >1/3 of best-known solutions for VRPTW [42]	Better solution quality, repeatability [44]
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)	Competitive in fewer scenarios [10]	Benefits from hybridization for constraint handling [11]	Popular but less dominant in rigorous testing [10]	Faster initial convergence, simpler implementation [11]
Hybrid DE-PSO	Enhanced performance over standalone algorithms [11]	Superior diversity maintenance and local optima escape [11]	Effective for rich vehicle routing with multiple constraints [45]	Balances exploration-exploitation trade-off [11]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Knowledge-Based Evolutionary Algorithm for VRPTW

A Knowledge-Based Evolutionary Algorithm (KBEA) was developed for the Multiobjective Vehicle Routing Problem with Time Windows (MOVRPTW) with the dual objectives of minimizing both the number of vehicles and total travel distance [42]. The methodology incorporated problem-specific knowledge into genetic operators:

• Crossover Operator: Exchanged one of the best routes based on the shortest average distance
• Relocation Mutation: Relocated customers in non-decreasing order of time window length
• Split Mutation: Broke the longest-distance link in routes
• Benchmarking: Tested against 10 existing algorithms using standard 100-customer and 200-customer problem instances from Solomon's benchmark set [42]

The algorithm's performance was evaluated based on its ability to update the best-known non-dominated solutions while handling hard time window constraints where vehicles must arrive within customer-specified time intervals [42].

Hybrid DE-PSO with Dynamic Strategies (MDE-DPSO)

The MDE-DPSO algorithm addresses PSO's tendency for premature convergence by integrating DE mechanisms [11]:

• Dynamic Parameter Control: Implemented novel dynamic inertia weight and adaptive acceleration coefficients to adjust particle search range
• Velocity Update Strategy: Integrated center nearest particle and perturbation term to direct search
• DE Mutation Crossover: Applied DE mutation strategies based on particle improvement, generating mutant vectors combined with current best positions through crossover
• Validation: Evaluated on CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, and CEC2022 benchmark suites against fifteen algorithms [11]

This hybrid approach leverages DE's exploratory capabilities to help PSO particles escape local optima while maintaining PSO's convergence benefits [11].

Rich Vehicle Routing with Variable Neighborhood Descent and DE

For the Rich Vehicle Routing Problem (RVRP) incorporating four realistic constraints (complex road networks, load constraints, time windows, and demand splitting), researchers combined DE with Variable Neighborhood Descent (VND) [45]:

• Oppositional Learning: Enhanced basic DE with oppositional learning to broaden search range
• VND Integration: Embedded VND local search to address premature convergence
• Multi-Modal Formulation: Treated RVRP as a multi-modal multi-objective optimization problem to identify multiple equivalent optimal paths
• Performance Evaluation: Compared against state-of-the-art RVRP solving methods on standard benchmark instances [45]

Algorithmic Workflows for Constrained Optimization

The following diagram illustrates a generalized experimental workflow for solving constrained multi-objective optimization problems, integrating elements from the KBEA, hybrid DE-PSO, and DE-VND approaches:

Generalized Workflow for Constrained Multi-Objective Optimization

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Computational Resources

Resource Category	Specific Instances	Function in Experimental Research
Benchmark Problems	Solomon's VRPTW instances [42]	Standardized performance evaluation with 56-100 customer scenarios
Test Suites	CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, CEC2022 [11]	Rigorous algorithmic testing on diverse numerical functions
Performance Metrics	Inverted Generational Distance (IGD), Pareto Sets Proximity (PSP) [46]	Quantifies convergence to true Pareto front and diversity maintenance
Constraint Handling Techniques	Penalty functions, feasibility rules, special operators [43]	Manages complex constraints while progressing toward optimality
Multi-Modal Capabilities	Crowding distance, niching, clustering methods [46]	Maintains diverse solution sets in both decision and objective space

Experimental evidence consistently demonstrates Differential Evolution's superior performance in handling complex real-world constraints, particularly in multi-objective scenarios like vehicle routing with time windows and capacity limits [42] [44]. While PSO remains popular in application studies, DE generally produces higher-quality solutions with better repeatability in constrained environments [10] [44].

The emerging research direction favors hybrid approaches that combine DE's exploratory strength with PSO's convergence properties [45] [11]. For researchers and drug development professionals selecting optimization methodologies, DE-based algorithms currently offer the most robust approach for problems characterized by multiple constraints and competing objectives, though hybrid DE-PSO formulations show promising results for balancing solution quality and computational efficiency [11].

In the domain of swarm intelligence and evolutionary computation, two algorithmic families have consistently demonstrated prominence for solving complex, real-world optimization problems: Differential Evolution (DE) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO). Both proposed in the mid-1990s, these population-based metaheuristics have evolved into numerous variants, each claiming enhancements in performance [10]. However, a critical question persists within the scientific community: which algorithm family delivers superior performance when measured against rigorous, standardized metrics? A comprehensive comparison study reveals a fascinating contradiction: although PSO variants appear two-to-three times more frequently in the literature, DE algorithms consistently demonstrate superior performance on a wider range of numerical benchmarks and real-world problems [10]. This guide provides an objective, data-driven comparison of DE and PSO performance, focusing on the core metrics of convergence speed, solution accuracy, and algorithmic robustness to inform researchers and practitioners in fields including drug development and biomedical research.

Core Performance Metrics in Computational Optimization

Evaluating optimization algorithms requires standardized metrics that quantify performance across different problem domains and operating conditions. The following core metrics are essential for meaningful algorithmic comparison.

• Convergence Speed: Measures the computational effort required for an algorithm to reach a satisfactory solution, typically quantified by the number of function evaluations (NFEs) or iterations needed to achieve a target objective value. Faster convergence reduces computational costs and time-to-solution.
• Solution Accuracy: The proximity of the best-found solution to the known global optimum (for benchmarks) or the best achievable objective value (for real problems). It reflects the algorithm's precision and final output quality [47].
• Robustness (Stability): An algorithm's ability to maintain consistent performance across diverse problem types, dimensionalities, and computational budgets. Robust algorithms demonstrate low performance variance and do not require extensive parameter re-tuning for new problems [48].

These metrics often present trade-offs; for instance, algorithms with rapid initial convergence may sacrifice final accuracy by settling into local optima, while highly accurate algorithms may require substantial computational resources.

Performance Comparison: DE vs. PSO

Broad-Scale Experimental Findings

A landmark comparison of ten DE and ten PSO variants—from historical to state-of-the-art—conducted on numerous single-objective numerical benchmarks and 22 real-world problems revealed a definitive performance trend [10].

Table 1: Overall Performance Comparison of DE and PSO Algorithm Families

Performance Aspect	Differential Evolution (DE)	Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)
Average Performance	Clearly outperforms PSO on most problems [10]	Inferior to DE on a majority of test problems [10]
Prevalence in Literature	Less frequently used [10]	2-3 times more popular in published literature [10]
Problem Superiority Domains	Excels on a wider range of problems [10]	Superior performance is observed on relatively few problems [10]
Competition Success	Frequently wins or reaches top positions in evolutionary computation competitions [10]	Less successful in head-to-head algorithm competitions [10]

Quantitative Performance on Standardized Benchmarks

Standardized benchmark suites from the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC) provide controlled environments for direct algorithmic comparison. The following table synthesizes performance data from recent studies on widely-used CEC benchmarks.

Table 2: Quantitative Performance on CEC Benchmark Suites

Benchmark Suite / Algorithm	Performance Metric	DE Variant (e.g., LSHADE, jSO)	PSO Variant (e.g., CLPSO, TBPSO)	Hybrid DE-PSO (e.g., MDE-DPSO)
CEC2017 (30D, 50D, 100D)	Mean Error / Best Solution Found	Lower error, superior solution quality [48]	Higher error, struggles with complex multimodality [11]	Highly competitive, often outperforms pure variants [11]
CEC2022 (10D, 20D)	Ranking / Statistical Test Result	Top-tier performance [49] [48]	Mid-to-lower tier performance [50]	Significant competitiveness demonstrated [11]
22 Real-World Problems (CEC2011)	Success Rate / Consistency	High consistency and reliability [10] [48]	Lower consistency, problem-dependent performance [10]	Not extensively tested on this suite
Convergence Speed	NFEs to Reach Target Accuracy	Generally efficient [49]	Faster initial convergence, but may stagnate [50] [11]	Improved speed via dynamic strategies [11]

Experimental Protocols for Algorithm Evaluation

Standard Benchmarking Methodology

To ensure fair and reproducible comparisons, researchers adhere to standardized experimental protocols:

• Problem Selection: Algorithms are tested on a diverse set of benchmark functions, including unimodal (tests convergence speed), multimodal (tests ability to escape local optima), and hybrid/composition functions (tests general robustness) [49] [48]. Real-world problems from suites like CEC2011 are also included [48].
• Computational Budget: A key parameter is the maximum number of function evaluations (N_max). Performance is evaluated by either (a) measuring solution quality after a fixed N_max is exhausted, or (b) calculating the NFEs required to reach a pre-defined target objective value [10].
• Dimensionality: Tests are run across multiple dimensions (e.g., 10D, 30D, 50D, 100D) to assess scalability [48].
• Independent Runs and Statistical Analysis: Each algorithm is run multiple times (commonly 30-51 independent runs) from different random initializations to account for stochasticity. Results are then compared using non-parametric statistical tests (like the Wilcoxon signed-rank test) to determine statistical significance [49] [50].

Workflow for a Comparative Study

The following diagram illustrates the standard workflow for conducting a performance comparison between optimization algorithms.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Components in Modern Optimization Research

Advancing the state-of-the-art in optimization algorithms involves leveraging specialized strategies and components. The table below details key "research reagents" used in developing modern DE and PSO variants.

Table 3: Essential Components in Modern Optimization Algorithm Research

Research Component	Function / Purpose	Example Implementations
Parameter Adaptation	Dynamically adjusts key parameters (e.g., DE's F and CR; PSO's w, c1, c2) during the search to balance exploration and exploitation, reducing the need for manual tuning.	JADE, LSHADE [48]; MPSO with nonlinear inertia weight [11].
Population Management	Controls population size and diversity throughout the optimization process to prevent premature convergence and manage computational cost.	Nonlinear population reduction in LSHADE [49] and ARRDE [48].
Hybridization	Combines strengths of different algorithms (e.g., DE's mutation with PSO's social learning) to overcome inherent limitations.	MDE-DPSO [11], DE-PSO hybrids [10].
Specialized Mutation/Learning	Enhances information sharing and guides the search direction more effectively to escape local optima.	DE/current-to-pbest/2 [48]; PSO with teaming behavior (TBPSO) [50].
External Archives	Stores promising or discarded solutions to preserve diversity and provide information for future search steps.	Archive in JADE [48]; Archive in SLDE [23].
Chaotic Initialization	Uses chaotic maps to generate the initial population, improving coverage and ergodicity of the initial solution set.	Used in CECPSO [51] and RLDE [23].

Enhancing Performance with Advanced Strategies

Adaptive and Hybrid Mechanisms

The pursuit of robustness has driven innovation in adaptive mechanisms. For instance, the ARRDE algorithm addresses performance degradation across different benchmark suites and computational budgets by incorporating a nonlinear population size reduction and an adaptive restart mechanism. If the population diversity decreases continuously or fitness fails to improve, new individuals are introduced to avoid stagnation [48]. This enhances robustness, allowing ARRDE to maintain top-tier performance across five different CEC benchmark suites [48].

Similarly, hybridization strategies have proven highly effective. The MDE-DPSO algorithm integrates DE's mutation and crossover operators into PSO's framework. It uses a dynamic velocity update strategy and selects mutation strategies based on particle improvement, which helps the swarm escape local optima [11]. This synergy directly tackles PSO's core weakness of premature convergence, leading to significant improvements in solution accuracy on the CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, and CEC2022 test suites [11].

Structural and Behavioral Modifications

Modifying the core structure of an algorithm can yield substantial gains. The TBPSO algorithm introduces a teaming behavior, where particles are divided into teams with designated leaders. Team leaders update search directions through information factors, allowing particles to utilize heuristic information more effectively [50]. This structural change provides better global search capabilities, resulting in faster convergence speed and higher precision on 27 test functions and real-world problems like UAV deployment [50].

The objective evidence from extensive comparative studies indicates that the Differential Evolution family of algorithms generally holds a performance advantage over Particle Swarm Optimization on a wider array of single-objective, numerical optimization problems, demonstrating superior accuracy and robustness [10] [48]. However, PSO's popularity persists, likely due to its conceptual simplicity and strong performance on specific problem classes.

The future of metaheuristic optimization lies not necessarily in a binary choice between DE and PSO, but in the continued development of adaptive, hybrid, and generalist algorithms. As demonstrated by leading-edge variants, incorporating sophisticated parameter control, population management, and hybrid strategies effectively addresses the inherent limitations of pure DE or PSO. For researchers in drug development and other applied sciences, selecting an optimization algorithm should be guided by the specific problem characteristics and performance requirements. The metrics and data presented herein provide a foundational framework for making such critical decisions, empowering scientists to leverage computational optimization for groundbreaking discoveries.

Overcoming Limitations: Strategies to Enhance DE and PSO Performance

Premature convergence represents a significant challenge in evolutionary computation, where an optimization algorithm becomes trapped in a local optimum before discovering the globally optimal solution. This phenomenon plagues both Differential Evolution (DE) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithms, particularly when applied to high-dimensional, multimodal problems common in scientific research and drug development. The core issue stems from an imbalance between exploration (searching new regions) and exploitation (refining known good regions), often exacerbated by rapidly diminishing population diversity.

This comparative guide examines state-of-the-art adaptive strategies in DE and PSO frameworks that directly address premature convergence through sophisticated parameter control mechanisms and diversity maintenance techniques. By analyzing recently published algorithms and their experimental performance across standardized benchmarks, we provide researchers with actionable insights for selecting and implementing optimization approaches suited to complex computational problems in pharmaceutical research and development.

Theoretical Foundations: DE vs. PSO

Differential Evolution Fundamentals

Differential Evolution operates through a cycle of mutation, crossover, and selection operations to evolve a population of candidate solutions toward the global optimum. The classic DE/rand/1 mutation strategy generates new candidate vectors according to:

[ vi(t+1) = x{r1}(t) + F \cdot (x{r2}(t) - x{r3}(t)) ]

where ( F ) is the scaling factor, and ( r1, r2, r3 ) represent distinct random indices [23]. The crossover operation then combines components from the target vector and mutant vector to create a trial vector, with the CR parameter controlling crossover probability. Finally, selection determines whether the trial vector replaces the target vector in the next generation based on fitness evaluation [23].

Particle Swarm Optimization Fundamentals

Particle Swarm Optimization mimics social behavior patterns, where each particle adjusts its trajectory through the search space based on its own historical best position (( Pbest )) and the global best position (( Gbest )) discovered by the entire swarm. The velocity and position update equations define this movement:

[ \begin{aligned} V{i}^{t+1} &= w \cdot v{i}^{t} + c1 \cdot r{1} \cdot (Pbest{i}^{t} - X{i}^{t}) + c2 \cdot r{2} \cdot (Gbest^{t} - X{i}^{t}) \ X{i}^{t+1} &= X{i}^{t} + V{i}^{t+1} \end{aligned} ]

where ( w ) represents inertia weight, ( c1 ) and ( c2 ) are acceleration coefficients, and ( r1 ), ( r2 ) are random values in [0,1] [11]. The inertia weight influences the trade-off between global exploration and local exploitation, while acceleration coefficients control the attraction toward personal and global best positions.

Adaptive Parameter Control Strategies

DE Parameter Adaptation Approaches

Modern DE variants have moved beyond fixed parameters toward sophisticated adaptation strategies that automatically adjust control parameters based on algorithmic performance and search state:

• Joint Adaptation of Strategies and Parameters: A reinforcement learning framework utilizing distributed proximal policy optimization enables simultaneous adaptation of mutation strategies and control parameters. By incorporating fitness landscape analysis into state representations, this approach learns optimal policies for dynamically selecting mutation strategy and parameter combinations, demonstrating competitive performance on CEC2013 and CEC2017 benchmarks [52].

• Semi-Adaptive Parameter Control: To address instability caused by excessive parameter fluctuations, a semi-adaptive parameter control method based on fitness of the irrelevant function implements parameter restrictions across different evolutionary stages. This approach retains flexibility for exploring unknown search spaces while preventing extreme parameter values from persisting across iterations, thereby improving convergence efficiency [53].

• Multi-stage Parameter Control: The ADE-AESDE algorithm introduces an individual ranking factor that divides scaling factor generation into three distinct phases, optimizing the balance between exploration and exploitation throughout the evolutionary process [54]. Similarly, MSA-DE structures evolution into three stages with unique mutation strategies and evolutionary schemes tailored to each phase [53].

PSO Parameter Adaptation Approaches

PSO improvements have focused on dynamic adjustment of inertia weights and acceleration coefficients to maintain search momentum while preventing premature convergence:

• Dynamic Inertia Weight: A novel dynamic inertia weight method combined with adaptive acceleration coefficients dynamically adjusts particles' search range. This approach enables more effective balancing of global and local search capabilities, thereby accelerating convergence [11].

• Asynchronous Learning Factors: The IPSO-BP model implements asynchronous adjustment of individual learning factor (( c1 )) and social learning factor (( c2 )). This strategy enhances global search capability in early stages while strengthening local search in later stages, with inertia weights adapting complementarily to further balance exploration and exploitation [55].

• Reinforcement Learning-Based Adaptation: A dynamic parameter adjustment mechanism based on policy gradient networks enables online adaptive optimization of scaling factors and crossover probabilities through a reinforcement learning framework. This approach continuously optimizes parameters based on interaction with the optimization landscape [23].

The following diagram illustrates the architectural patterns shared by advanced adaptive control systems in both DE and PSO algorithms:

Figure 1: Adaptive Control Architecture in DE and PSO Algorithms

Diversity Maintenance Mechanisms

DE Diversity Enhancement Techniques

Maintaining population diversity throughout the evolutionary process is crucial for preventing premature convergence in DE. Recent approaches include:

• Stagnation Detection and Response: ADE-AESDE implements a stagnation detection mechanism based on population hypervolume, combining guided differential jump, seed-pool recombination, and archive-guided differential replay strategies to update stagnant individuals. This multi-faceted approach enhances population diversity when search progress plateaus [54].

• Enhanced Diversity Maintenance: MSA-DE introduces comprehensive diversity maintenance through population initialization, shrinkage, and updating mechanisms. This coordinated approach addresses conflicting demands between search range and search rate across different evolutionary stages, effectively ameliorating premature convergence issues [53].

• Multi-Programme Individual Maintenance: By implementing a multi-programme approach to individual maintenance, algorithms can preserve diverse solution characteristics that may prove valuable in later search stages, even if they do not immediately yield fitness improvements [54].

PSO Diversity Enhancement Techniques

PSO variants have developed innovative hierarchical and mutation-based approaches to sustain diversity:

• Diversity-Driven Hierarchical Structure: A three-level collaborative architecture assigns differentiated roles to particles at different levels. Top-level particles enhance global exploration through probabilistic velocity pausing, middle-level particles perform standard velocity updates to ensure convergence stability, and bottom-level particles maintain population diversity through reverse learning and dimension learning strategies [56].

• Archive-Guided Mutation: TAMOPSO incorporates an adaptive Lévy flight strategy that automatically increases global mutation probability when population convergence is detected. This expands search range during convergence periods while enhancing local mutation for refined search during dispersion phases, creating dynamic adaptation to population states [57].

• Task Allocation: By dividing populations according to particle distribution status and implementing a task allocation mechanism, TAMOPSO assigns different evolutionary tasks to particles with different characteristics, improving evolutionary search efficiency through specialized roles [57].

Performance Comparison on Benchmark Functions

Experimental Setup and Methodology

Performance validation of the discussed algorithms primarily utilizes the CEC (Congress on Evolutionary Computation) benchmark suites, specifically CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, and CEC2022. These standardized test sets provide diverse problem landscapes including unimodal, multimodal, hybrid, and composition functions that mimic real-world optimization challenges [54] [11] [53].

Standard experimental protocols involve:

• Multiple independent runs (typically 30-51) to ensure statistical significance
• Comparison of mean error values from known optima
• Statistical testing (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) to verify performance differences
• Evaluation of convergence speed through progressive fitness measurement

The table below summarizes quantitative performance comparisons across recently proposed DE and PSO variants:

Table 1: Performance Comparison of DE and PSO Variants on Standard Benchmarks

Algorithm	Type	Key Features	CEC2017 Performance	CEC2022 Performance	Real-World Applications
ADE-AESDE [54]	DE	Multi-stage mutation, stagnation detection	Near-zero errors on multimodal functions	Competitive results	Engineering optimization problems
RLDE [23]	DE	Reinforcement learning parameter control	Significant enhancement in global optimization	N/A	UAV task assignment
MSA-DE [53]	DE	Semi-adaptive parameter control, diversity maintenance	Strong competitiveness	N/A	Engineering problems
MDE-DPSO [11]	PSO-DE Hybrid	Dynamic velocity update, DE mutation crossover	Significant competitiveness	Enhanced precision and efficiency	N/A
Diversity-PSO [56]	PSO	Tri-level population dynamics, diversity control	Near-zero errors on multimodal functions	Exceptional accuracy	Lithography mask optimization
TAMOPSO [57]	PSO	Task allocation, archive-guided mutation	N/A	N/A	Multi-objective optimization problems

Convergence Behavior Analysis

Advanced DE and PSO variants demonstrate distinct convergence characteristics:

• DE Variants: Typically exhibit more gradual convergence with better sustained diversity throughout the evolutionary process. Algorithms like ADE-AESDE and MSA-DE show remarkable ability to escape local optima in mid to late stages of evolution through their stagnation detection and diversity maintenance mechanisms [54] [53].

• PSO Variants: Often display faster initial convergence but require specialized mechanisms to prevent premature stagnation. Approaches incorporating hierarchical structures or hybrid DE operations maintain more stable convergence progress throughout the search process [56] [11].

The following diagram illustrates the typical convergence patterns and diversity maintenance workflows in advanced optimization algorithms:

Figure 2: Diversity Maintenance and Convergence Workflow

Application in Scientific Research and Drug Development

Optimization algorithms play increasingly critical roles in pharmaceutical research, where complex molecular modeling, drug design, and clinical trial optimization problems present significant computational challenges:

• Molecular Docking Simulations: DE variants with strong multimodal exploration capabilities can more effectively search conformational spaces for optimal ligand-receptor binding configurations, with adaptive parameter control maintaining search efficiency across different molecular systems.

• Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) Modeling: PSO algorithms with diversity preservation mechanisms demonstrate enhanced performance in feature selection for high-dimensional descriptor spaces, identifying relevant molecular descriptors while avoiding overfitting [58].

• Clinical Trial Design Optimization: Multi-objective approaches like TAMOPSO can balance competing objectives in trial design, such as maximizing statistical power while minimizing patient recruitment time and costs [57].

The maintenance of population diversity proves particularly valuable in drug discovery applications, where chemically diverse compound libraries increase chances of identifying novel scaffolds with desired biological activity and favorable pharmacokinetic properties.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Computational Tools for Optimization Research

Tool Category	Specific Examples	Function in Research	Application Context
Benchmark Suites	CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, CEC2022	Standardized performance evaluation	Algorithm development and comparison
Diversity Metrics	Population hypervolume [54], Fitness-based diversity measures	Quantifying population diversity	Stagnation detection and adaptive control
Adaptive Control Frameworks	Reinforcement learning agents [23] [52], Semi-adaptive parameter systems [53]	Dynamic algorithm parameter adjustment	Maintaining exploration-exploitation balance
Mutation Strategy Libraries	DE/rand/1, DE/best/1, DE/target-to-pbest/1 [53]	Providing diverse search operators	Strategy adaptation and hybrid algorithms
Visualization Tools	Convergence plots, Diversity tracking graphs	Algorithm behavior analysis	Performance debugging and enhancement

The ongoing competition between Differential Evolution and Particle Swarm Optimization has produced significant advances in addressing premature convergence through adaptive parameter control and diversity maintenance. While both algorithm families continue to evolve, several trends emerge from recent research:

DE variants demonstrate particular strength in maintaining population diversity through sophisticated mutation strategy adaptation and stagnation response mechanisms. The ADE-AESDE and MSA-DE algorithms exemplify how multi-stage approaches with dedicated diversity preservation can effectively navigate complex multimodal landscapes.

PSO algorithms show innovative approaches to structural organization, with hierarchical architectures and task specialization enabling more effective balance between exploration and exploitation. The integration of DE mutation operators into PSO frameworks, as seen in MDE-DPSO, represents a promising hybridization approach that leverages strengths from both paradigms.

For researchers in drug development and scientific computing, selection criteria should prioritize:

• Problem characteristics (dimensionality, modality, parameter space)
• Computational budget constraints
• Diversity requirements in solution sets
• Implementation complexity

The continued integration of machine learning techniques, particularly reinforcement learning, for parameter adaptation and strategy selection points toward increasingly autonomous optimization systems capable of self-adjusting to problem-specific characteristics without expert intervention.

The pursuit of robust optimization algorithms is a central challenge in computational science, particularly for complex applications in drug development and engineering. Standalone metaheuristic algorithms, such as Differential Evolution (DE) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), each possess distinct strengths and weaknesses. DE is renowned for its powerful mutation operators and robust exploration capabilities, making it exceptionally effective in navigating complex, multimodal search spaces [59]. In contrast, PSO excels in social learning, leveraging collective intelligence through the influence of personal and global best positions to facilitate rapid convergence [15]. However, DE can suffer from slow convergence and weak exploitation, while PSO is often plagued by premature convergence in single-objective numerical optimization [11] [16].

Hybrid algorithms that combine DE's mutation strength with PSO's social learning are designed to harness these complementary strengths. By integrating the explorative power of DE's mutation and crossover operators with the exploitative efficiency of PSO's social learning mechanism, these hybrids aim to achieve a superior balance, enhancing both convergence efficiency and the ability to escape local optima [59] [11] [16]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of such hybrid algorithms, evaluating their performance against traditional methods and detailing the experimental protocols used for validation.

Algorithmic Mechanisms and Workflows

Core Components of DE and PSO

The effectiveness of hybrid DE-PSO algorithms stems from the synergistic integration of their core components.

• Differential Evolution (DE) Operators: DE primarily relies on mutation and crossover to generate new trial vectors. A common mutation strategy is "DE/rand/1", which creates a mutant vector, ( Vi ), for each population member, ( Xi ), according to ( Vi = X{r1} + F \cdot (X{r2} - X{r3}) ), where ( r1, r2, r3 ) are distinct random indices and ( F ) is the mutation factor controlling amplification [59] [16]. The crossover operation then combines the mutant vector with the target vector to produce a trial vector, enhancing population diversity and facilitating robust global exploration [59].

• Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) Dynamics: PSO updates each particle's velocity and position based on social learning. The velocity update is given by ( v{ij}^{t+1} = \omega v{ij}^{t} + c1 r1 (pBest{ij}^{t} - x{ij}^{t}) + c2 r2 (gBest{j}^{t} - x{ij}^{t}) ), where ( \omega ) is the inertia weight, ( c1 ) and ( c2 ) are acceleration coefficients, and ( pBest ) and ( gBest ) represent the particle's personal best and the swarm's global best position, respectively [11] [15]. This mechanism allows particles to efficiently converge towards promising regions in the search space.

Hybridization Strategies and Workflow

Different hybridization strategies have been developed to effectively merge these components, as illustrated in the workflow below.

The hybrid workflow typically follows a parallel or interleaved structure. A common approach involves performing a standard PSO update on the entire swarm, followed by the application of DE operators to generate new trial vectors [11]. A critical step is the selection process, where the fitness of the newly created trial vectors is compared against that of the current particles. The superior individuals are retained for the next generation, ensuring the population evolves towards better solutions [16]. This process leverages PSO's social learning for guided convergence and DE's mutation for diversification and escaping local optima.

Advanced hybrids incorporate adaptive strategies to dynamically control parameters. The MDE-DPSO algorithm, for instance, uses a dynamic inertia weight and adaptive acceleration coefficients to adjust the particles' search range throughout the optimization process [11]. Furthermore, some algorithms divide the population into subpopulations based on fitness (e.g., elite, ordinary, and inferior particles), applying different update strategies—such as PSO for some and DE for others—to balance exploration and exploitation effectively [60].

Performance Comparison and Experimental Data

Quantitative Performance on Benchmark Functions

Extensive evaluations on standard benchmark suites demonstrate the competitive performance of hybrid DE-PSO algorithms. The following table summarizes key quantitative results from comparative studies.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Hybrid DE-PSO on Benchmark Functions

Algorithm	Benchmark Suite	Key Comparative Metrics	Performance Summary
MDE-DPSO [11]	CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, CEC2022	Best fitness, average fitness, convergence speed	Demonstrated significant competitiveness and often superior performance against 15 other state-of-the-art algorithms.
HPSO-DE [16]	Classic Multimodal Functions	Success rate, convergence reliability	Competitive and often superior performance compared to standard PSO, DE, and their variants; effectively avoids local optima.
HSPSO [61]	CEC-2005, CEC-2014	Best fitness, average fitness, stability	Superior to standard PSO, DAIW-PSO, BOA, ACO, and FA in achieving optimal results and stability.
APSO [60]	Standard Benchmark Functions	Optimal value, standard deviation, average value	Outperformed existing algorithms on most test functions, showing enhanced search efficiency and robustness.

Performance in Engineering and Practical Applications

The robustness of hybrid DE-PSO algorithms is further validated through their application to complex real-world problems, as shown in the table below.

Table 2: Performance in Engineering and Practical Applications

Application Domain	Algorithm	Performance Findings	Citation
Power System Relay Coordination	DE, PSO, HGSO	DE provided superior results with the minimum computational time and best objective function value.	[13]
Induction Motor Parameter Estimation	HPJOA (PSO-Jaya Hybrid)	Showed competitive performance against conventional PSO, Jaya, DE, and GA; confirmed high robustness in experimental tests.	[62]
Feature Selection for Classification	HSPSO-FS (Hybrid PSO)	Applied to the UCI Arrhythmia dataset, resulting in a high-accuracy classification model that outperformed traditional methods.	[61]
Complex Continuous Optimization	MBDE (DE-PSO Hybrid)	Showed remarkable solution quality, convergence rate, and efficiency compared to other methods.	[59]

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Standardized Benchmarking Methodology

To ensure fair and reproducible comparisons, researchers typically adhere to a rigorous experimental protocol. The standard methodology involves:

• Benchmark Selection: Algorithms are tested on widely recognized benchmark suites from the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), such as CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, and CEC2022. These suites contain a diverse set of unimodal, multimodal, hybrid, and composition functions designed to rigorously test algorithm performance [11] [61].
• Parameter Settings: Key control parameters are carefully set. For PSO, this includes the inertia weight (e.g., linearly decreasing from 0.9 to 0.4), acceleration coefficients (e.g., ( c1 = c2 = 2.0 )), and population size [15] [60]. For DE, critical parameters are the mutation factor (e.g., ( F = 0.5 )) and crossover rate (e.g., ( CR = 0.9 )) [59] [16]. Hybrid algorithms may use adaptive parameter strategies [11].
• Evaluation Criteria: Performance is measured using multiple criteria, including:
  • Solution Quality: The best-found fitness value and average fitness over multiple independent runs.
  • Convergence Speed: The number of function evaluations or iterations required to reach a satisfactory error threshold.
  • Robustness: The standard deviation of fitness values across independent runs, indicating algorithmic stability [11] [61].
• Statistical Validation: To draw meaningful conclusions, researchers often perform statistical tests, such as the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, to verify the significance of performance differences between algorithms [59] [11].

Application-Oriented Testing

For domain-specific applications like feature selection or power systems, the experimental protocol is adapted:

• Problem Formulation: The real-world problem is formalized as an optimization problem. For example, feature selection is often framed as maximizing classifier performance while minimizing the number of selected features [63].
• Algorithm Adaptation: The hybrid algorithm is modified to handle the problem's specific constraints and search space, often involving binary versions for discrete problems [63].
• Performance Metrics: Domain-specific metrics are used. In feature selection, these include classification accuracy, selected feature subset size, and F-measure [61] [63]. In power system relay coordination, the total operating time of relays is a key metric [13].
• Comparative Baselines: The hybrid algorithm's performance is compared against standalone DE, PSO, and other state-of-the-art metaheuristics relevant to the field [13] [62] [61].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details key computational "reagents" — the fundamental algorithms and strategies — essential for constructing and experimenting with hybrid DE-PSO algorithms.

Table 3: Key Research Reagents in Hybrid DE-PSO Development

Research Reagent	Function & Role in Hybrid Algorithms
DE Mutation Strategies (e.g., DE/rand/1)	Provides powerful exploration by generating diverse trial vectors, crucial for escaping local optima. [59]
PSO Social Learning (pBest & gBest)	Drives exploitation by guiding the swarm to converge efficiently towards promising regions. [11] [15]
Adaptive Inertia Weight	Dynamically balances global and local search; higher values promote exploration, lower values aid exploitation. [11] [60]
Chaotic Population Initialization	Uses Logistic or Sine maps to generate an initial population with better diversity, improving initial exploration. [60]
Subpopulation Division	Splits swarm into groups (e.g., by fitness) to apply tailored update strategies, enhancing balance. [59] [60]
Cauchy/Gaussian Mutation	Introduces random perturbations to best particles, helping to jump out of local optima and maintain diversity. [61]

The selection of an optimization algorithm is pivotal in computational research, influencing the efficiency and success of projects ranging from logistics to drug discovery. Among the most prominent metaheuristic approaches are Differential Evolution (DE) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), both population-based methods but with distinct philosophical underpinnings and operational mechanisms [10]. While DE employs a one-to-one selection mechanism and moves solutions primarily based on current population distribution, PSO incorporates memory of past performance and directional movement, guided by historical best positions of individuals and the swarm [10]. Despite both algorithms having simple initial versions proposed in the mid-1990s, they have since evolved into sophisticated optimization techniques through numerous variants and enhancements [10].

A critical advancement in these algorithms has been the development of dynamic parameter control strategies, particularly inertia weight adjustments and time-varying coefficients, which enable better balance between global exploration and local exploitation during the search process. This guide provides an objective comparison of DE and PSO performance, with special emphasis on how dynamic strategy adaptations influence their effectiveness across various applications, including computational drug design where optimization plays an increasingly crucial role.

Theoretical Foundations of PSO and DE

Particle Swarm Optimization Framework

PSO is a swarm intelligence algorithm inspired by the collective behavior of bird flocks and fish schools [11]. In canonical PSO, each particle represents a potential solution and navigates the search space by adjusting its velocity and position according to the following equations [64]:

$$\begin{aligned} {V}{i}^{t+1} &= w \cdot {v}{i}^{t} + c1 \cdot {r}{1} \cdot ({Pbest}{i}^{t} - {X}{i}^{t}) + c2 \cdot {r}{2} \cdot ({Gbest} ^{t} -{X}{i}^{t}) \ X{i}^{t+1} &= X{i}^{t} + V{i}^{t+1} \end{aligned}$$

where:

• (t) denotes the iteration number
• (w) represents the inertia weight
• (c1) and (c2) are acceleration coefficients
• (r1) and (r2) are random numbers in [0,1]
• (Pbest) is the particle's historical best position
• (Gbest) is the swarm's global best position

Differential Evolution Framework

DE is an evolutionary algorithm that maintains a population of candidate solutions and evolves them through mutation, crossover, and selection operations [10]. The classic DE mutation strategy "DE/rand/1" generates a mutant vector for each individual (x_i) as follows:

$$vi = x{r1} + F \cdot (x{r2} - x{r3})$$

where (r1), (r2), and (r3) are distinct random indices, and (F) is the scaling factor. This is followed by a crossover operation between the mutant vector and the target vector, and a selection step where the better solution advances to the next generation [10].

Dynamic Parameter Adaptation Strategies

Inertia weight adjustments in PSO balance global exploration and local exploitation. A larger inertia weight facilitates exploration, while a smaller one promotes exploitation [64]. Researchers have proposed various dynamic adjustment strategies:

• Non-linear decreasing methods: Time-varying inertia weight decreasing non-linearly to improve performance [65]
• Dynamic oscillation inertia weight: Novel approach to balance exploration and exploitation more effectively [64]
• Chaotic inertia weight: Using chaos-based nonlinear inertia weight to help particles better balance exploration and exploitation [11]

Time-varying acceleration coefficients adapt the cognitive ((c1)) and social ((c2)) components during optimization. Tian et al. found that sigmoid-based acceleration coefficients can effectively balance global search ability in early stages and convergence in later stages [11]. Duan et al. combined linear and nonlinear methods to adaptively adjust these parameters [64].

For DE, similar adaptive strategies have been developed for the scaling factor (F) and crossover rate (CR), though these are less frequently emphasized in the literature compared to PSO parameter adaptations.

Performance Comparison: Experimental Data

Benchmark Studies and Real-World Applications

Comprehensive experimental comparisons reveal distinct performance characteristics between DE and PSO algorithms. A broad comparison of ten PSO and ten DE variants, from historical 1990s versions to recent 2022 approaches, tested on numerous single-objective numerical benchmarks and 22 real-world problems, demonstrated that DE algorithms clearly outperform PSO on average [10]. This performance advantage contradicts popularity metrics, as PSO algorithms appear two-to-three times more frequently in literature than DE approaches [10].

Table 1: Overall Performance Comparison Between DE and PSO

Performance Metric	Differential Evolution	Particle Swarm Optimization
Average Performance	Superior on most problems [10]	Inferior on most problems [10]
Popularity in Literature	Less frequently used [10]	2-3 times more frequently used [10]
Competition Results	Frequently wins or reaches competing positions [10]	Less successful in direct competitions [10]
Premature Convergence	Less prone [10]	More prone, especially in single-objective numerical optimization [11]
Low Computational Budget Scenarios	Performance advantage decreases [10]	Can outperform DE [10]

Specific Application Performance

In practical applications, the performance comparison varies by domain:

Table 2: Domain-Specific Performance Comparison

Application Domain	DE Performance	PSO Performance	Key Findings
Postman Delivery Routing	Superior - notably better than PSO [19]	Inferior - but better than current practices [19]	Both outperformed actual routing practices; DE was superior to PSO [19]
Single-Objective Numerical Optimization	Generally better performance [10]	Prone to premature convergence [11]	Hybrid DE-PSO approaches show significant competitiveness [11]
Low Computational Budget Problems	Reduced advantage [10]	Can prevail over DE [10]	PSO's faster initial convergence beneficial with limited resources [10]
De Novo Drug Design	Applied in evolutionary approaches [66]	Used in swarm intelligence-based methods [67]	Both successfully generate novel molecular structures [66] [67]

Impact of Dynamic Strategy Adaptation

The incorporation of dynamic parameter control strategies significantly affects algorithm performance:

Table 3: Effect of Dynamic Strategies on Algorithm Performance

Strategy	Implementation Approach	Impact on Performance
Dynamic Inertia Weight	Non-linear decrease, chaotic maps, dynamic oscillation [64]	Improves balance between exploration and exploitation, enhances convergence [64]
Time-Varying Acceleration Coefficients	Adaptive adjustment based on sigmoid functions, linear/nonlinear methods [11]	Better balances global search and convergence capabilities [11]
Hybrid DE-PSO Approaches	Incorporating DE mutation crossover into PSO [11]	Helps particles escape local optima, improves solution diversity [11]
Rank-Based Selection	PSOrank with γ best particles contributing to updates [65]	Outperforms standard PSO for most functions, improves effectiveness and robustness [65]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Standardized Testing Frameworks

Performance comparisons between DE and PSO typically employ rigorous experimental protocols using established benchmark suites:

• CEC Benchmark Suites: The Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC) benchmark suites (CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, CEC2022) provide standardized test functions for evaluating optimization algorithms [11]
• Real-World Problem Sets: Collections of 22 real-world problems as commonly used in evolutionary computation communities [10]
• Computational Budget Approach: Fixed number of function evaluations after which solution quality is compared [10]

The experimental methodology typically follows these steps:

• Implement multiple DE and PSO variants with their respective parameter control strategies
• Apply algorithms to benchmark problems with fixed computational budgets
• Compare final solution quality or number of function evaluations needed to reach target value
• Perform statistical analysis to validate significance of results

Hybrid Algorithm Implementation

The MDE-DPSO algorithm represents a sophisticated implementation of dynamic strategy adaptation, combining elements from both DE and PSO [11]:

• Dynamic Inertia Weight: Novel dynamic inertia weight method with adaptive acceleration coefficients to adjust particles' search range [11]
• Dynamic Velocity Update: Integration of center nearest particle and perturbation term to enhance search capability [11]
• DE Mutation Crossover: Application of DE mutation crossover operator to PSO, selecting mutation strategy based on particle improvement [11]
• Validation: Testing on CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, and CEC2022 benchmark suites against fifteen other algorithms [11]

Performance Evaluation Metrics

Comparative studies utilize multiple metrics to assess algorithm performance:

• Solution Accuracy: Quality of the best solution found
• Convergence Speed: Number of function evaluations required to reach satisfactory solutions
• Robustness: Consistency of performance across different problem types
• Statistical Significance: Non-parametric statistical tests like Wilcoxon signed-rank test to validate differences

Visualization of Algorithm Structures and Workflows

Algorithm Architecture Comparison

Dynamic Strategy Adaptation Workflow

Research Reagent Solutions: Computational Tools

Table 4: Essential Research Tools for Optimization Algorithm Development

Tool Category	Specific Examples	Function in Research
Benchmark Suites	CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, CEC2022 test functions [11]	Standardized performance evaluation and comparison
Real-World Problem Sets	Collection of 22 real-world optimization problems [10]	Validation of practical applicability
Molecular Optimization Frameworks	EvoMol, JT-VAE, MolGAN, ORGAN, MolDQN [67]	Specialized tools for drug discovery applications
Performance Metrics	Solution accuracy, convergence speed, robustness statistics [64]	Quantitative algorithm assessment
Statistical Analysis Tools	Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Friedman test [64]	Validation of performance differences significance

The comparative analysis between Differential Evolution and Particle Swarm Optimization reveals a complex performance landscape where DE generally holds an advantage in solution quality across diverse problem domains, though PSO remains more popular in literature. Dynamic strategy adaptations, particularly inertia weight adjustments and time-varying coefficients, significantly enhance both algorithms' performance by better balancing exploration and exploitation phases.

For researchers and drug development professionals, algorithm selection should consider problem characteristics, computational budget, and implementation constraints. DE approaches generally provide superior solution quality for most numerical optimization tasks, while PSO may be preferable under strict computational constraints. The emerging class of hybrid DE-PSO algorithms with dynamic parameter control offers promising directions for future research, potentially combining the strengths of both approaches while mitigating their respective limitations.

The integration of these optimization techniques into computational drug design workflows, particularly for de novo molecular design, demonstrates the practical value of continued algorithm development and comparison. As optimization challenges in pharmaceutical research grow increasingly complex, advanced dynamic adaptation strategies will play an increasingly crucial role in accelerating drug discovery and development.

In the domain of metaheuristic optimization, the persistent challenge of premature convergence to local optima significantly hinders the ability of algorithms to locate global solutions in complex, high-dimensional search spaces [23]. This comprehensive analysis examines the core mechanisms—specifically, local search and mutation operators—employed by two prominent population-based optimization algorithms, Differential Evolution (DE) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), to overcome this limitation. Framed within the broader context of DE versus PSO performance research, this guide objectively compares their methodologies, supported by experimental data from benchmark functions and real-world applications. A foundational study reveals that while DE algorithms, on average, "clearly outperform" PSO ones, this advantage stands in contradiction to PSO's greater popularity in the literature [10]. Understanding the architectural philosophies behind their escape mechanisms is crucial for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals in selecting and tailoring the appropriate algorithm for their specific optimization challenges.

Algorithmic Fundamentals and Escape Philosophies

The fundamental operational principles of DE and PSO dictate their inherent approaches to navigating the search space and avoiding local optima.

Differential Evolution (DE)

DE is an evolutionary algorithm that emphasizes the one-to-one selection mechanism. Its core operation involves generating a trial vector for each individual in the population through differential mutation and crossover [10] [23]. A critical feature of DE is its greedy selection process; the newly generated trial individual replaces the current one only if it improves the objective function value [10]. This creates a steady, generation-by-generation improvement. The primary mechanism for escaping local optima in basic DE is the differential mutation operator, which leverages vector differences between randomly selected population members to create diverse, exploratory moves [23] [68]. The most basic mutation strategy, "DE/rand/1," is expressed as: $${v}{i}(t+1)={x}{r1}(t)+F *({x}{r2}(t)-{x}{r3}(t))$$ where (vi(t+1)) is the mutant vector, (x{r1}, x{r2}, x{r3}) are distinct population vectors, and (F) is the scaling factor [23].

Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)

PSO is a swarm intelligence algorithm inspired by social behavior. Particles navigate the search space by updating their velocity and position based on historical information [10] [69]. Each particle remembers the best location it has personally visited (pbest) and is aware of the best location found by its neighbors (gbest). The movement of PSO individuals is governed by their current location, their historical best, the size of their recent move, and the social information from the swarm [10]. Unlike DE, particles in PSO move to a new location regardless of whether it is immediately better, relying on the guidance of pbest and gbest to eventually converge on promising regions. This inherent momentum can lead to rapid convergence but also increases susceptibility to becoming trapped in local optima if the entire swarm's diversity is lost prematurely [69].

Advanced Hybridization and Improvement Strategies

To combat premature convergence, numerous advanced variants of both DE and PSO have been developed, often integrating sophisticated local search and mutation techniques.

Enhanced Differential Evolution Algorithms

Recent DE research focuses on adaptive parameter control, multi-strategy integration, and hybrid mechanisms to balance exploration and exploitation.

• Reinforcement Learning (RL) Integration: The RLDE algorithm introduces a dynamic parameter adjustment mechanism using a policy gradient network. This allows for online adaptive optimization of the scaling factor (F) and crossover probability (CR) within a reinforcement learning framework [23]. Furthermore, RLDE implements a differentiated mutation strategy where the population is classified by fitness, and different mutation strategies are applied to different groups to retain better solutions and improve poorer ones [23].
• Multi-Population and Opposition-Based Learning: The MPNBDE algorithm employs a multi-population approach based on a Birth & Death (B&D) process inspired by evolutionary game theory. It introduces a novel mutation strategy, "DE/pbad-to-pbest-gbest-Fermi/1," which controls the extent of information exchange using a Fermi rule [70]. A key innovation is its Opposition-Based Learning with Condition (OBLC), which is triggered only when the population diversity drops below a threshold. This provides a powerful and targeted escape mechanism from local optima [70].
• Enhanced Mutation Strategies: Another direction involves directly refining the mutation operation. One approach introduces a new coefficient factor ("σ") in conjunction with the "DE/rand/1" base vector. This aims to fortify the convergence of local variables during exploitation, thereby improving both the convergence rate and the quality of the final solution [68].

Enhanced Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithms

PSO variants have evolved to incorporate richer information sets and predictive capabilities to guide particles more effectively.

• Integration of Future Information: The NeGPPSO algorithm is a landmark innovation that integrates future information for the first time. It uses a non-equidistant grey predictive evolution algorithm to predict a future particle for each member of the current swarm [69]. This future particle, along with the particle's best, the swarm's best, and a historical memory particle, forms a guide set. The best candidate from this set is greedily selected, allowing the swarm to benefit from the comprehensiveness of historical, current, and predicted future information [69].
• Hybridization with Other Metaheuristics: The QIGPSO algorithm hybridizes PSO with a Gravitational Search Algorithm (GSA). It replaces traditional acceleration factors with an absolute Gaussian random variable and modifies the position update equations. This hybridization aims to leverage the global convergence and rapid search of Quantum PSO (QPSO) with the local search strengths of GSA, creating a better balance and reducing the risk of entrapment in local optima [41].
• Historical Memory and Comprehensive Learning: Approaches like the Composite PSO with Historical Memory (HMPSO) expand the guiding information for each particle to include its historical pbest records, the current pbest, and the gbest [69]. The Triple-Archives PSO (TAPSO) designs three archives to store historical information of elite particles, profiteers, and excellent exemplars to guide the search [69].

Performance Comparison and Experimental Data

The following sections provide a detailed comparison of DE and PSO performance based on published experimental protocols and results.

The table below synthesizes key findings from multiple studies, highlighting the relative performance of DE and PSO across different problem domains.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of DE and PSO Algorithms

Study / Algorithm	Problem Domain	Key Performance Findings
Broad Comparison (2023) [10]	Single-objective numerical benchmarks (24) and 22 real-world problems	On average, Differential Evolution algorithms "clearly outperform" Particle Swarm Optimization ones. Problems where PSO performs better than DE exist but are "relatively few."
Postman Delivery Routing (2021) [19]	Vehicle Routing Problem (VRP) - Real-world logistics	Both DE and PSO outperformed current practices. DE performances were "notably superior" to those of PSO in minimizing total travel distance.
RLDE Algorithm (2025) [23]	26 standard test functions (10, 30, 50 dimensions)	The proposed RLDE (Improved DE) significantly enhanced global optimization performance compared to other heuristic algorithms.
NeGPPSO Algorithm (2025) [69]	42 CEC2014/2022 benchmark functions & 3 engineering problems	The proposed NeGPPSO (Improved PSO) demonstrated overall advantages over several state-of-the-art algorithms in solution accuracy and escaping local optimal.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

To ensure reproducibility and provide a clear basis for comparison, the following tables outline the experimental methodologies from two key studies.

Table 2: Experimental Protocol for Broad DE/PSO Comparison [10]

Protocol Element	Description
Objective	Compare the performance of ten DE variants and ten PSO variants, from historical to modern (1990s to 2022).
Problem Sets	Four sets of problems: three based on mathematical minimization functions and one composed of 22 real-world problems.
Performance Metric	Quality of the solution found after a fixed number of objective function evaluations (computational budget).
Termination Condition	Search terminated when the pre-defined computational budget (number of function calls) is exhausted.

Table 3: Experimental Protocol for RLDE Algorithm [23]

Protocol Element	Description
Objective	Verify the effectiveness of the RLDE algorithm against other heuristic optimization algorithms.
Test Functions	26 standard test functions for optimization testing.
Dimensions	Problems tested in 10, 30, and 50 dimensions.
Validation Method	Comparison with multiple heuristic optimization algorithms. Additional validation via modeling a UAV task assignment problem.

Workflow and Signaling Pathways

The diagram below illustrates the integrated workflow of a modern DE algorithm, highlighting how adaptive mutation and local search components interact to facilitate escape from local optima.

Diagram 1: Differential Evolution with Enhanced Escape Mechanisms. This workflow shows the integration of adaptive mutation (e.g., guided by RL) and conditional local search (e.g., OBLC) to maintain diversity and escape local optima.

The following diagram outlines the structure of an advanced PSO variant that incorporates future information, expanding the information set used to guide particles.

Diagram 2: Particle Swarm Optimization with Future Information. This workflow illustrates how predicting future particles (future information) is integrated with historical and current information to create a more comprehensive guide for particle movement, helping to avoid local traps.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Algorithmic Components

For researchers seeking to implement or adapt these optimization strategies, the following table details key algorithmic "reagents" and their functions.

Table 4: Key Components for Enhanced Optimization Algorithms

Component / Strategy	Algorithm Class	Primary Function in Escaping Local Optima
Reinforcement Learning Policy Network [23]	DE	Dynamically adjusts scaling factor (F) and crossover probability (CR) in response to the search state, enabling adaptive exploration/exploitation balance.
Opposition-Based Learning with Condition (OBLC) [70]	DE	Acts as a targeted jump mechanism. When population diversity drops, it generates opposing solutions to explore unseen regions of the search space.
Multi-Population with B&D Process [70]	DE	Manages computational resources between sub-populations focused on exploration and exploitation, preventing premature consensus.
Non-Equidistant Grey Predictive Evolution [69]	PSO	Mines "future information" by predicting the future state of particles, providing a novel guidance direction beyond historical and current bests.
Quantum-Inspired Hybridization (QPSO+GSA) [41]	PSO	Combines the global convergence strength of QPSO with the local search precision of GSA, creating a more robust search dynamic.
Historical Memory Archives [69]	PSO	Stores diverse historical elite information (e.g., pbest, gbest, crossover exemplars), preventing the loss of valuable genetic material.
Fermi Rule-based Information Exchange [70]	DE	Probabilistically controls the extent of information borrowed from the best particles, introducing stochasticity to avoid over-exploitation.

The pursuit of escaping local optimima has driven significant innovation in both Differential Evolution and Particle Swarm Optimization. DE's philosophy, centered on greedy selection and differential mutation, has naturally evolved towards sophisticated adaptive control systems (e.g., reinforcement learning) and conditional jump mechanisms (e.g., OBLC) that actively reset the search when stagnation is detected [23] [70]. In contrast, PSO's philosophy, built on momentum and social learning, has advanced by enriching the information landscape available to each particle, incorporating not just historical and social data but even predictive future states [69].

Experimental evidence consistently demonstrates that DE and its modern variants often hold a performance advantage on a wide range of benchmark and real-world problems [10] [19]. However, the latest PSO innovations that successfully integrate predictive and hybrid elements are showing highly competitive results, narrowing this performance gap [69] [41]. The choice between DE and PSO, therefore, should not be based on historical popularity but on a careful analysis of the problem landscape and the specific escape mechanisms that are most likely to succeed, leveraging the components detailed in this guide to inform that critical decision.

Parameter Tuning Guidelines for Specific Problem Classes in Scientific Domains

In the domain of population-based metaheuristics, two algorithms have dominated scientific application for nearly three decades: Differential Evolution (DE) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO). Both were proposed in the mid-1990s and have since evolved into numerous variants applied across virtually every field of science and engineering [10]. A fascinating paradox has emerged from comparative studies: while DE algorithms consistently demonstrate superior performance on average across numerical benchmarks and real-world problems, PSO variants remain two to three times more popular in the scientific literature [10]. This performance gap necessitates a detailed examination of their fundamental operating principles and tuning requirements, particularly for researchers in demanding scientific domains like drug development where optimization efficiency directly impacts research outcomes.

The fundamental difference in their search dynamics explains their complementary strengths. DE operates mainly as a function of the current location of solutions in the search space, where new positions are accepted only if they improve fitness [10]. In contrast, PSO particles move to new locations regardless of immediate performance but remember their best historical position and are influenced by neighbors' discoveries [10]. This distinction in movement philosophy creates different exploration-exploitation balances that respond differently to parameter configurations across problem classes.

Performance Comparison: Quantitative Analysis Across Problem Domains

Broad-Scale Benchmark Comparisons

A comprehensive 2023 comparison of ten PSO variants against ten DE variants, spanning historical approaches from the 1990s to modern implementations, revealed a consistent performance advantage for DE algorithms across numerous single-objective numerical benchmarks and 22 real-world problems [10]. The study followed experimental protocols where algorithms were compared based on solution quality achieved within a fixed computational budget (number of objective function evaluations) [10].

Table 1: Overall Performance Comparison Between DE and PSO Families

Metric	Differential Evolution	Particle Swarm Optimization
Average Performance	Superior across most test problems	Inferior on average, with exceptions
Popularity in Literature	Less frequently used	2-3 times more popular
Problem Types with Advantage	Majority of numerical benchmarks and real-world problems	Relatively few specific cases
Early Convergence Behavior	Less prone to premature convergence	More susceptible to premature convergence
Parameter Sensitivity	High sensitivity to mutation strategies and control parameters	High sensitivity to inertia weight and social/cognitive parameters

Real-World Application Performance

In specialized scientific domains, the performance differential manifests distinctly. In particle physics, for validating 4-zero texture models using a chi-square criterion, a novel DE variant incorporating PSO concepts (HE-DEPSO) outperformed both standard DE and PSO, obtaining chi-squared values that exhaustive traditional algorithms could not achieve [17]. Similarly, for complex engineering design problems with mixed continuous and discrete variables, hybrid approaches combining PSO with other algorithms have shown significant improvements, suggesting that pure PSO struggles with certain constraint types [71].

Table 2: Domain-Specific Performance Characteristics

Application Domain	Best Performing Approach	Key Performance Metrics
Particle Physics Model Validation	HE-DEPSO (DE-PSO Hybrid)	Achieved chi-square values below required threshold where other methods failed [17]
Engineering Design Problems	Hybrid GWO-PSO	43.94%-99% improvement in optimal values across 8 design problems [71]
Intrusion Detection Systems	PSO-Optimized Ensemble	Superior detection accuracy and reduced false positives [72]
General Numerical Optimization	Adaptive DE Variants (APDSDE)	Superior on CEC2017 benchmark functions [73]

Experimental Protocols and Evaluation Methodologies

Standard Benchmarking Protocols

Performance comparisons between DE and PSO typically employ standardized experimental methodologies to ensure fair evaluation. The CEC (Congress on Evolutionary Computation) benchmark suites (CEC2013, CEC2017, CEC2022) provide established testbeds with diverse function characteristics including unimodal, multimodal, hybrid, and composition functions [52] [17] [71]. The standard protocol follows these steps:

• Function Evaluation Budget: Algorithms are allocated a fixed number of objective function evaluations (e.g., 10,000 × problem dimensionality) [10] [73]
• Multiple Independent Runs: Each algorithm executes 25-51 independent runs to account for stochastic variation [17] [73]
• Statistical Significance Testing: Non-parametric tests like Wilcoxon signed-rank test determine significant performance differences [73]
• Solution Quality Metrics: Primary metrics include mean error, standard deviation, and best error value found [73]

For real-world problem evaluations, researchers typically use domain-specific performance metrics alongside optimization quality measures. In particle physics applications, the chi-square criterion between experimental data and computational results serves as the primary fitness function [17]. For intrusion detection systems, classification accuracy, false positive rates, and computational efficiency form the evaluation framework [72].

Performance Visualization

Diagram 1: DE vs PSO Performance Factors

Algorithm-Specific Tuning Guidelines

Differential Evolution Parameter Tuning

DE's performance is profoundly influenced by its mutation strategy and control parameters (scaling factor F and crossover rate CR) [73]. Recent advances focus on adaptive parameter control and multiple mutation strategies:

Mutation Strategy Selection:

• DE/rand/1: Excellent for exploration, avoids premature convergence
• DE/best/1: Accelerates convergence but increases stagnation risk
• DE/current-to-pBest-w/1: Balances exploration and exploitation [73]
• Adaptive Switching: Modern variants like APDSDE automatically switch between strategies based on performance [73]

Parameter Adaptation Techniques:

• Success History-Based Adaptation: Records successful F and CR values, reusing them probabilistically [17]
• Cosine Similarity Adaptation: Uses cosine similarity between parent and trial vectors instead of Euclidean distance [73]
• Nonlinear Reduction: Gradually decreases population size during evolution to maintain diversity while improving convergence [73]

For scientific domains with computationally expensive evaluations (e.g., molecular docking in drug development), population size reduction strategies are particularly valuable. The APDSDE algorithm implements a sophisticated nonlinear population size reduction method that optimizes convergence speed while preserving diversity [73].

Particle Swarm Optimization Parameter Tuning

PSO performance heavily depends on inertia weight (ω) and acceleration coefficients (c₁, c₂) [14] [8]. The past decade has seen significant advances in adaptive parameter control:

Inertia Weight Strategies:

• Time-Varying Schedules: Linearly decrease ω from 0.9 to 0.4 during iterations [14] [8]
• Randomized and Chaotic Inertia: Sample ω from distributions or chaotic sequences to escape local optima [14]
• Adaptive Feedback: Adjust ω based on swarm diversity, velocity dispersion, or improvement rate [14]
• Stability-Based Adaptation: Modify ω based on convergence stability criteria [14]

Acceleration Coefficient Tuning:

• Time-Varying Acceleration Coefficients (TVAC): Decrease c₁ (cognitive) and increase c₂ (social) over time [14]
• Self-Adaptive Coefficients: Particles individually adjust c₁ and c₂ based on personal success rates [14]
• Compound Adaptation: Simultaneously adapt ω, c₁, and c₂ using techniques like ADIWACO [14]

Table 3: Optimal Parameter Ranges for PSO Variants

Parameter	Standard PSO	Adaptive PSO	Hybrid PSO
Swarm Size	20-50 particles	30-100 particles	Problem-dependent
Inertia Weight (ω)	0.4-0.9	Dynamically adapted (0.4-0.9)	Externally controlled
Cognitive Coefficient (c₁)	1.5-2.0	0.5-2.5 (adaptive)	Modified by hybrid mechanism
Social Coefficient (c₂)	1.5-2.0	1.5-2.5 (adaptive)	Modified by hybrid mechanism
Velocity Clamping	10-20% of search space	Often eliminated	Varies with application

Problem-Class-Specific Recommendations

Numerical Optimization Problems

For general numerical optimization, particularly with multimodal and composition functions, DE variants with adaptive parameters demonstrate superior performance. The APDSDE algorithm, which incorporates dual mutation strategies and cosine similarity-based parameter adaptation, has shown exceptional results on CEC2017 benchmarks [73]. Recommended configuration:

• Mutation Strategy Pool: Combine DE/current-to-pBest-w/1 and DE/current-to-Amean-w/1 [73]
• Parameter Adaptation: Use cosine similarity between parent and trial vectors for F and CR weights [73]
• Population Management: Implement nonlinear population reduction from 200 to 50 individuals [73]

Diagram 2: Differential Evolution Workflow

Engineering Design and Constrained Optimization

For engineering design problems with multiple constraints and mixed variable types, hybrid approaches that combine PSO with other algorithms show promise. The HGWPSO algorithm (Hybrid Grey Wolf-PSO) demonstrates how PSO's exploitation capabilities can complement other algorithms' exploration strengths [71]. Key configuration insights:

• Constraint Handling: Use dynamic penalty functions that modify fitness based on constraint violation severity [71]
• Hybrid Balance: Allocate 50-70% of iterations to exploration-focused algorithm (GWO) and remainder to PSO [71]
• Parameter Control: Implement adaptive weight mechanisms that dynamically modify the influence of each algorithm component [71]

High-Dimensional and Real-World Scientific Problems

For scientific domains like drug development with high-dimensional parameter spaces and expensive evaluations:

• Computational Efficiency: Use surrogate-assisted models with DE for initial screening phases [10]
• Parameter Tuning: Implement self-adaptive DE variants like JADE or SHADE that minimize manual parameter tuning [17] [73]
• Hybrid Approaches: Consider DEPSO-style hybrids that leverage DE's reliability with PSO's convergence speed [17]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Essential Computational Resources for Optimization Research

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Context
CEC Benchmark Suites	Standardized test functions for algorithm validation	Performance comparison and baseline establishment
Adaptive DE Variants (SHADE, APDSDE)	Self-tuning DE implementations with historical memory	General numerical optimization and scientific modeling
Hybrid GWO-PSO Framework	Constrained optimization with balanced exploration-exploitation	Engineering design and parameter estimation
Parameter Adaptation Modules	Automated tuning of control parameters during search	Reducing manual configuration effort
Fitness Landscape Analysis	Characterizing problem difficulty and algorithm selection	Pre-optimization problem assessment

The empirical evidence clearly demonstrates DE's performance advantage over PSO for most scientific optimization problems, particularly in numerical benchmarks and real-world applications with complex search landscapes [10]. This advantage stems from DE's more systematic exploration approach and effective parameter adaptation mechanisms [73]. However, PSO continues to excel in specific domains, particularly when hybridized with other algorithms or when adapted for specialized constraint handling [72] [71].

For researchers in scientific domains like drug development, the tuning guidelines presented here provide a foundation for algorithm selection and configuration. DE variants with adaptive parameter control and multiple mutation strategies generally offer the most reliable performance for complex optimization tasks. Future research directions include deeper hybridization of DE and PSO concepts, improved adaptive parameter control using machine learning, and problem-specific tuning guidelines for emerging scientific domains.

Benchmarking Performance: A Data-Driven Comparison of DE and PSO Efficacy

The selection of an appropriate metaheuristic algorithm is crucial for solving complex optimization problems in scientific research and industrial applications. Among the most prominent population-based optimization methods are Differential Evolution (DE) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), both proposed in the mid-1990s. These algorithms have generated decades of research and hundreds of variants, yet a comprehensive understanding of their relative performance has remained unclear until recent large-scale studies [10]. This guide provides an objective comparison of DE and PSO performance based on extensive benchmarking across standardized test suites and real-world problems, offering researchers evidence-based guidance for algorithm selection.

The fundamental operational principles of DE and PSO differ significantly. DE enhances candidate solutions through evolutionary operations including mutation, crossover, and selection [74]. In contrast, PSO simulates social behavior patterns, where particles navigate the search space influenced by their own experience and that of their neighbors [14] [61]. While DE is traditionally classified as an evolutionary algorithm and PSO as a swarm intelligence method, some researchers note that DE's one-to-one selection mechanism could also qualify it as a swarm intelligence approach [10].

Experimental Methodology and Benchmark Standards

Standardized Testing Protocols

Performance evaluations in optimization algorithm research follow standardized methodologies to ensure fair and reproducible comparisons. The most widely accepted approach involves testing algorithms on benchmark functions with fixed computational budgets, where performance is measured by solution quality after exhausting a predetermined number of function evaluations [10]. Alternative methods terminate search when algorithms reach pre-defined solution quality thresholds, comparing the computational effort required [10].

Contemporary benchmarking typically employs the CEC (Congress on Evolutionary Computation) test suites, which have evolved annually to present increasingly difficult challenges. These suites include diverse function types such as unimodal, multimodal, hybrid, and composition functions, testing algorithm capabilities across various optimization landscapes [11] [74] [75]. Recent comprehensive studies have evaluated algorithms across multiple CEC suites (including CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, and CEC2022) to ensure robust performance assessment [11] [74].

Key Performance Metrics

Researchers employ multiple metrics to comprehensively evaluate algorithm performance:

• Solution Accuracy: The difference between found optima and known global optimum
• Convergence Reliability: Consistency in finding high-quality solutions across multiple runs
• Statistical Significance: Non-parametric statistical tests (e.g., Wilcoxon rank-sum) to verify performance differences
• Friedman Rank Test: Overall ranking across multiple benchmark problems

Experimental Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the standardized experimental workflow used in comprehensive algorithm comparisons:

Performance Comparison on Standardized Benchmarks

CEC Test Suite Results

Comprehensive studies comparing 10 DE and 10 PSO variants from historical foundations to modern implementations (up to 2022) reveal a consistent performance advantage for DE algorithms across multiple CEC test suites [10]. The following table summarizes key results from recent large-scale comparisons:

Table 1: Performance Comparison on CEC Benchmark Suites

Test Suite	Dimension	Superior Algorithm	Statistical Significance	Key Findings
CEC2013	30D, 50D, 100D	DE [10]	Significant (p<0.05)	DE variants consistently outperformed PSO across dimensions
CEC2014	Multiple dimensions	DE [10] [74]	Significant (p<0.05)	DE showed better convergence precision and stability
CEC2017	50D, 100D	DE [10] [75]	Significant (p<0.05)	DE advantages more pronounced in higher dimensions
CEC2022	Multiple dimensions	DE [11] [74]	Significant (p<0.05)	Modern DE variants maintained performance advantage

Recent bio-inspired PSO variants like Biased Eavesdropping PSO (BEPSO) and Altruistic Heterogeneous PSO (AHPSO) have shown competitive performance on CEC2013 and CEC2017 test suites, though overall DE dominance persists [75]. On CEC2013 benchmarks across all dimensions, both BEPSO and AHPSO performed statistically significantly better than 10 of 15 comparator algorithms, while no algorithms performed significantly better than either BEPSO or AHPSO [75].

Real-World Problem Performance

Beyond artificial benchmarks, algorithm performance on real-world optimization problems provides critical validation. A comprehensive study evaluating 22 real-world problems found that DE algorithms clearly outperform PSO approaches on average [10]. The performance advantage of DE over PSO on real-world problems is often more pronounced than on artificial benchmarks, suggesting DE's operators may be better suited to practical optimization landscapes.

Specific real-world applications demonstrate this pattern:

• Power Systems Protection: In directional overcurrent relay coordination problems, DE provided superior results compared to PSO and Henry Gas Solubility Optimization (HGSO), achieving the minimum computational time and best coordination characteristics [13].
• Particle Physics: DE-based algorithms successfully optimized texture models in particle physics phenomenology, where traditional analytical methods failed to meet required criteria [17].
• Engineering Design: Complex engineering problems with non-convex, high-dimensional search spaces frequently favor DE's exploratory capabilities [10] [74].

Table 2: Real-World Application Performance Comparison

Application Domain	Problem Type	DE Performance	PSO Performance	Remarks
Power Systems [13]	Relay Coordination	Superior	Competitive	DE achieved minimum computational time
Particle Physics [17]	Model Validation	Effective	Not Reported	DE successfully optimized χ² function
General Engineering [10]	Mixed Problems	Clearly Superior	Less Competitive	Based on 22 real-world problems
Constrained Optimization [75]	Mixed Problems	Competitive	BEPSO/AHPSO Strong	On constrained problem set, BEPSO ranked first

Algorithm Variants and Modern Improvements

Differential Evolution Advancements

Modern DE variants have incorporated sophisticated adaptation mechanisms to enhance performance:

• LSHADESPA: Integrates proportional population reduction, simulated annealing-based scaling factors, and oscillating inertia weight-based crossover, demonstrating superior performance on CEC2014, CEC2017, and CEC2022 benchmarks [74].
• SHADE and L-SHADE: Incorporate history-based parameter adaptation and linear population size reduction, significantly improving convergence properties [74] [75].
• DE with Reinforcement Learning: Joint adaptation of mutation strategies and control parameters using distributed proximal policy optimization, showing competitive performance on CEC2013 and CEC2017 problems [52].
• JADE: Implements self-adaptive parameter control with optional external archive, improving convergence speed and reliability [74].

Particle Swarm Optimization Enhancements

PSO researchers have focused on addressing premature convergence through various strategies:

• Adaptive Parameter Control: Dynamic adjustment of inertia weight and acceleration coefficients based on swarm feedback [14] [16]. This includes nonlinear decreasing, chaotic, and random inertia weight strategies.
• Topological Variations: Alternative neighborhood structures including Von Neumann, dynamic, and small-world topologies to maintain diversity [14].
• Hybrid DE-PSO Algorithms: Combining DE's mutation operators with PSO's social learning, such as MDE-DPSO and HPSO-DE, to leverage strengths of both approaches [11] [16].
• Bio-Inspired Variants: Novel approaches like BEPSO and AHPSO inspired by animal eavesdropping and altruistic behaviors, showing competitive performance on recent benchmarks [75].

The following diagram illustrates the key adaptation mechanisms in modern DE and PSO variants:

Table 3: Essential Research Resources for Algorithm Benchmarking

Resource Category	Specific Tools	Purpose and Function
Benchmark Suites	CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, CEC2022	Standardized test problems for reproducible algorithm comparison
Performance Metrics	Best Error, Average Error, Statistical Tests	Quantifiable performance assessment and significance verification
Algorithm Variants	SHADE, LSHADE, LSHADESPA, CLPSO, HCLPSO	State-of-the-art implementations for baseline comparison
Statistical Analysis	Wilcoxon Rank-Sum, Friedman Test	Non-parametric statistical evaluation of performance differences
Real-World Testbeds	Power Systems, Physics Models, Engineering Problems	Validation on practical optimization challenges

Comprehensive benchmarking across CEC test suites and real-world problems reveals that Differential Evolution algorithms generally outperform Particle Swarm Optimization approaches in terms of solution quality and reliability [10]. This performance advantage persists across problem dimensions and types, though particularly pronounced in higher-dimensional and real-world problems.

This DE superiority presents a curious contradiction with publication trends, where PSO algorithms appear two-to-three times more frequently in the literature [10]. This discrepancy may stem from PSO's conceptual simplicity, easier implementation, or historical popularity. Nevertheless, evidence-based algorithm selection should favor DE variants for most single-objective, numerical optimization problems.

Promising research directions include hybrid DE-PSO algorithms that leverage both approaches' strengths [11] [16] [17], bio-inspired mechanisms that introduce novel search behaviors [75], and sophisticated parameter adaptation strategies using machine learning and reinforcement learning techniques [52]. For researchers and practitioners, modern DE variants like LSHADESPA and self-adaptive DE algorithms represent the current state-of-the-art for challenging optimization problems across scientific and engineering domains.

The selection of an appropriate optimization algorithm is a critical step in solving complex problems across engineering and scientific domains, including power systems protection and drug discovery. Differential Evolution (DE) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) represent two prominent families of population-based metaheuristics widely adopted for global optimization challenges [10] [76]. Despite their common population-based foundations, these algorithms employ fundamentally distinct search philosophies: DE relies on differential mutation and crossover operations to explore parameter spaces, while PSO mimics social behavior through particles influenced by individual and collective historical successes [10] [16].

A paradoxical relationship exists between their demonstrated performance and their popularity in scientific literature. Comprehensive comparative studies reveal that DE algorithms generally outperform PSO on a wide range of single-objective numerical optimization problems and real-world applications [10]. Nevertheless, PSO remains approximately two to three times more frequently cited in scientific literature, suggesting that factors beyond pure performance, such as implementation simplicity and historical precedent, significantly influence algorithm selection [10] [76].

This guide provides a statistically-grounded analysis of the performance characteristics of DE and PSO algorithms, specifically examining problem domains and conditions where each demonstrates superior performance. Through systematic comparison of experimental data and methodological protocols, we aim to equip researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with evidence-based criteria for selecting appropriate optimization techniques for their specific applications.

Theoretical Foundations and Algorithmic Mechanisms

Differential Evolution (DE)

DE operates through a population of candidate solutions that evolve using specialized mutation and crossover operations. The algorithm's distinctive approach to trial vector generation creates new candidate solutions by combining scaled differences between population members with existing individuals [16]. The fundamental DE strategy can be summarized as follows:

• Initialization: DE begins with a randomly initiated population of N D-dimensional parameter vectors, typically uniformly distributed across the search space [77].
• Mutation: For each target vector in the population, DE generates a mutant vector through differential mutation, most commonly using the "DE/rand/1" strategy: υ_i,g = x_r1,g + F·(x_r2,g - x_r3,g), where F is a scale factor controlling amplification [77].
• Crossover: The trial vector is created through recombination between the target vector and mutant vector, with parameter control determined by crossover rate Cr [77].
• Selection: A greedy selection mechanism determines whether the trial vector replaces the target vector in the next generation based on objective function value [77].

DE's performance is highly dependent on the chosen mutation strategy and associated parameter settings (F and Cr), which has led to numerous self-adaptive variants that automatically adjust these parameters during execution [17].

Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)

PSO is inspired by social behavior patterns such as bird flocking and fish schooling. In PSO, potential solutions (particles) navigate the search space by adjusting their trajectories based on individual and collective historical information [16]. The algorithm's mechanics include:

• Population Structure: A swarm consists of multiple particles, each representing a candidate solution with associated position and velocity vectors in n-dimensional space [16].
• Velocity Update: Particle velocities are updated each iteration according to: v_ij^(t+1) = w·v_ij^t + c_1·r_1·(pbest_ij^t - x_ij^t) + c_2·r_2·(gbest_j^t - x_ij^t), where w is inertia weight, c1 and c2 are acceleration coefficients, and r1, r2 are random numbers [16] [11].
• Position Update: Particles move to new positions based on their updated velocities: x_ij^(t+1) = x_ij^t + v_ij^(t+1) [16].
• Memory Retention: Unlike DE, PSO particles retain knowledge of their personal best position (pbest) and the swarm's global best position (gbest), which directly influences their movement trajectories [10].

PSO performance is significantly influenced by parameter tuning, particularly the inertia weight (w) and acceleration coefficients (c1, c2), leading to various adaptive parameter control strategies in advanced variants [11].

Key Algorithmic Differences

The fundamental philosophical difference between DE and PSO lies in their approach to population movement and selection. In DE, movement occurs only if the new position demonstrates improved fitness, implementing an inherent elitist selection mechanism. Conversely, PSO particles move regardless of fitness improvement, maintaining historical memory through personal and global best positions [10]. This distinction leads to different exploration-exploitation dynamics, with DE generally exhibiting more systematic exploration while PSO demonstrates faster initial convergence in many applications.

Table 1: Fundamental Algorithmic Characteristics

Characteristic	Differential Evolution (DE)	Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)
Inspiration	Natural evolution	Social behavior (flocking birds)
Movement Philosophy	Move only if better	Always move, remember best
Selection Mechanism	Greedy selection	Implicit through personal/global best
Key Parameters	Scale factor (F), Crossover rate (Cr)	Inertia weight (w), Acceleration coefficients (c1, c2)
Memory	Current population only	Personal best (pbest) and global best (gbest)

Performance Comparison: Experimental Data Analysis

Comprehensive Benchmark Studies

Large-scale comparative analyses provide the most reliable evidence regarding the relative performance of DE and PSO algorithms. A landmark study comparing ten PSO variants against ten DE variants on numerous single-objective numerical benchmarks and 22 real-world problems demonstrated that DE algorithms clearly outperform PSO on average [10]. This performance advantage was consistent across problems with diverse characteristics, including multimodal, high-dimensional, and ill-conditioned objective functions.

The superiority of DE was particularly pronounced in problems requiring precise solution refinement, where DE's differential mutation strategy enabled more effective local search around promising regions. However, the study also identified specific problem classes where PSO maintained competitive performance, particularly in early search stages with limited computational budgets [10].

Power Systems Protection Application

In engineering applications, the performance differences between DE and PSO have significant practical implications. A recent study on directional overcurrent relay coordination in power systems compared PSO, Henry Gas Solubility Optimization (HGSO), and DE for optimizing time dial setting and plug setting parameters [13]. The results demonstrated that while HGSO showed significant improvement over basic PSO, DE provided superior results with minimum computational time for both IEEE 6-bus and WSCC 9-bus test systems [13].

Table 2: Performance Comparison in Power Systems Protection

Algorithm	IEEE 6-Bus System	WSCC 9-Bus System	Computational Efficiency
PSO	Baseline performance	Baseline performance	Moderate
HGSO	Significant improvement over PSO	Significant improvement over PSO	Higher than PSO
DE	Superior results	Superior results	Minimum computational time

Drug Discovery and Healthcare Applications

Optimization algorithms play increasingly important roles in biomedical research, particularly in drug discovery and medical image analysis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, both DE and PSO were extensively applied for tasks such as epidemiological model calibration and image-based classification of patients [76]. DE demonstrated particular effectiveness in optimizing hyperparameters for deep learning models predicting drug-target binding affinity, achieving a concordance index of 0.898 on the DAVIS dataset and 0.971 on the KIBA dataset [39].

In feature selection for medical data classification, PSO-based approaches have shown excellent performance due to high efficiency and strong search capability, particularly when enhanced with network structure information [63]. This suggests that for specific data mining tasks with appropriate enhancements, PSO can deliver competitive results compared to DE approaches.

When DE Outperforms PSO: Problem Characteristics and Conditions

Complex Multimodal Problems

DE consistently demonstrates superior performance on complex multimodal problems where the objective function contains numerous local optima. The algorithm's differential mutation operator provides more effective topology exploration compared to PSO's social learning mechanism [10]. This advantage is particularly evident in:

• Real-world numerical optimization problems with unknown landscape characteristics [10]
• Power systems engineering applications such as protection coordination problems [13]
• Hyperparameter optimization for deep learning architectures in drug discovery [39]

Problems Requiring Precise Solution Refinement

DE's greedy selection mechanism and differential mutation strategy make it particularly effective for problems requiring high-precision solutions. The self-adaptive properties of modern DE variants, such as SHADE and L-SHADE, enable automatic adjustment of control parameters during execution, facilitating robust local search in final optimization stages [17]. This precision advantage manifests in:

• Lower objective function values at termination for mathematical benchmark functions [10]
• Reduced operating times in power systems protection coordination [13]
• Improved prediction metrics in optimized machine learning models [39]

Longer Computational Budget Scenarios

While PSO often shows rapid initial improvement, DE typically achieves superior final solutions when adequate computational resources are available. Research indicates that DE's advantage increases with higher function evaluation budgets, as its systematic exploration more effectively navigates complex search spaces [10]. This makes DE particularly suitable for applications where:

• Optimization accuracy prioritizes computational efficiency
• Objective function evaluations, while computationally expensive, can be reasonably allocated
• Robust, high-quality solutions are essential

When PSO Outperforms DE: Problem Characteristics and Conditions

Limited Computational Budget Scenarios

PSO frequently demonstrates faster initial convergence compared to DE, making it advantageous under strict computational constraints. Studies have shown that PSO can outperform DE when the number of function evaluations is severely limited [10] [76]. This advantage arises from PSO's social learning mechanism, which rapidly directs particles toward promising regions identified by the swarm. Applications benefiting from this characteristic include:

• Real-time optimization problems requiring quick acceptable solutions
• Preliminary design stages where rough optima suffice for initial guidance
• High-dimensional problems with very expensive objective function evaluations

Dynamic and Changing Environments

PSO's memory-based approach, retaining personal and global best positions, can provide advantages in dynamic optimization problems where the objective function changes over time. While both algorithms require modifications for dynamic environments, PSO's social structure may adapt more readily to gradual landscape changes through its inertia mechanism and continuous particle movement [76].

Specific Engineering Domains with Enhanced Variants

While basic PSO often trails DE in performance, enhanced PSO variants demonstrate competitive performance in specific application domains. For example, in feature selection for classification tasks, PSO-based methods have shown excellent performance when incorporating feature relationship patterns into the initialization and search process [63]. Similarly, hybrid PSO-DE approaches leverage the strengths of both algorithms, using PSO for rapid initial convergence and DE for refinement [11].

Hybrid Approaches: Integrating DE and PSO Strengths

Hybrid Algorithm Frameworks

Recognizing the complementary strengths of DE and PSO, researchers have developed numerous hybrid approaches seeking to balance their respective advantages. These hybrids generally fall into three categories:

• Sequential hybrids that apply PSO for initial exploration followed by DE for refinement
• Embedded hybrids that incorporate DE mutation strategies into PSO velocity updates
• Adaptive hybrids that dynamically select between DE and PSO operations based on search progress

One representative approach, the Historical Elite DEPSO (HE-DEPSO), incorporates PSO's social learning into DE's evolutionary framework while maintaining an elite archive of historical best solutions [17]. This integration enhances population diversity while preserving convergence precision, addressing premature convergence issues common in both algorithms [17].

Performance of Hybrid Algorithms

Experimental evaluations demonstrate that well-designed hybrid algorithms frequently outperform both standalone DE and PSO across diverse problem domains. The MDE-DPSO algorithm, which incorporates dynamic inertia weight, adaptive acceleration coefficients, and DE mutation operators, has shown significant competitiveness across CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, and CEC2022 benchmark suites [11].

Similarly, the HPSO-DE formulation introduces a balanced parameter between PSO and DE with adaptive mutation, enabling the algorithm to escape local optima while maintaining convergence speed [16]. These hybrids particularly excel in complex real-world applications such as texture optimization in particle physics, where they achieve performance thresholds inaccessible to exhaustive and traditional algorithms [17].

Experimental Protocols and Methodological Considerations

Standardized Evaluation Methodology

Robust comparison of optimization algorithms requires careful experimental design and standardized evaluation protocols. Based on analysis of comparative studies, key methodological considerations include:

• Benchmark Diversity: Comprehensive evaluation should include both artificial test functions and real-world problems with varying characteristics (unimodal, multimodal, separable, non-separable) [10]
• Statistical Significance: Performance comparisons should employ appropriate statistical tests with multiple independent runs to account for algorithmic stochasticity [76]
• Fair Parameter Tuning: Compared algorithms should employ optimally tuned or self-adaptive parameter control strategies rather than default settings [76]
• Computational Budget: Evaluation across multiple function evaluation budgets (low, medium, high) provides insight into convergence characteristics [10]

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Components for Algorithm Comparison

Component	Function	Example Instances
Benchmark Suites	Standardized test problems for controlled comparison	CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, CEC2022 [11]
Real-World Problems	Performance validation on practical applications	Power system relay coordination [13], Drug-target binding affinity [39]
Performance Metrics	Quantitative comparison criteria	Solution quality, convergence speed, computational efficiency, success rate [10]
Statistical Tests	Significance determination of performance differences	Non-parametric tests like Wilcoxon signed-rank test [76]

Experimental Workflow

The following diagram illustrates a standardized experimental workflow for comparing DE and PSO performance:

Diagram 1: Algorithm Performance Evaluation Workflow

This performance analysis demonstrates that DE generally outperforms PSO across a broader range of single-objective optimization problems, particularly for complex multimodal functions and applications requiring high-precision solutions [10]. Nevertheless, PSO maintains advantages in scenarios with limited computational budgets and continues to demonstrate excellent performance in specific domains, especially when enhanced with domain knowledge or hybridized with DE operations [11] [63].

The persistent popularity of PSO despite DE's performance advantage underscores the role of implementation simplicity and historical precedent in algorithm selection [10]. For researchers and practitioners, the choice between DE and PSO should be guided by problem characteristics, computational constraints, and solution quality requirements rather than popularity alone.

Future research directions include continued development of adaptive hybrid algorithms that dynamically leverage the strengths of both approaches, with particular promise shown in applications ranging from power systems engineering to drug discovery and particle physics [17] [11] [39]. As optimization challenges in scientific and engineering domains continue to evolve, both DE and PSO will remain essential tools in the computational researcher's toolkit.

In the field of computational optimization, a fascinating paradox has emerged: Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) enjoys significantly greater popularity in the literature, while comprehensive studies suggest Differential Evolution (DE) often delivers superior performance on benchmark and real-world problems. This disconnect between demonstrated efficacy and widespread adoption presents a compelling area for scientific inquiry. Bibliometric indices indicate that PSO algorithms are cited and applied two to three times more frequently than DE algorithms across various scientific and engineering domains [10]. Yet, when subjected to rigorous comparative testing on numerical benchmarks and real-world problems, DE algorithms "clearly outperform" their PSO counterparts on average [10].

This guide objectively examines this paradox by comparing recent algorithmic advances in both DE and PSO, analyzing their performance across standardized testing environments, and exploring factors that might explain PSO's persistent popularity despite DE's strong empirical results. Understanding this dynamic is particularly relevant for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals who rely on optimization algorithms for parameter tuning, model fitting, and complex system optimization tasks where algorithm selection can significantly impact results.

Performance Comparison: Quantitative Data Analysis

Large-Scale Algorithm Competition Results

A comprehensive 2023 comparison study evaluated ten PSO variants against ten DE variants spanning historical and modern implementations. The algorithms were tested across multiple problem sets, including 22 real-world problems from the evolutionary computation community [10]. The table below summarizes the key performance findings:

Table 1: Overall Performance Comparison Between DE and PSO Algorithms

Metric	Differential Evolution (DE)	Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)
Average Performance	Clear advantage across most problem types	Inferior on average, with exceptions on specific problems
Real-World Problem Performance	Superior performance on majority of 22 tested problems	Competitive on fewer problems
Popularity (Literature Presence)	Less frequently used	2-3 times more popular in literature
Computational Budget Sensitivity	Performs better with medium to high function evaluation budgets	Can be competitive with very low computational budgets
Notable Strengths	Effective on high-dimensional, complex landscapes	Faster initial convergence in some implementations

Recent Algorithm Variants Performance

Recent algorithmic improvements have yielded enhanced versions of both DE and PSO. The following table compares the performance of these contemporary implementations based on standardized benchmark testing:

Table 2: Performance of Recent DE and PSO Variants on CEC Benchmark Suites

Algorithm	Type	Key Innovation	Reported Performance	Test Benchmarks
RLDE [23]	DE	Reinforcement learning-based parameter adaptation	Significantly enhances global optimization performance	26 standard test functions
LGP [78]	DE	Local and global parameter adaptation	Improves solution accuracy, prevents premature convergence	CEC2017 benchmark suite
MDE-DPSO [11]	Hybrid	Dynamic strategies integrating DE and PSO	Highly competitive against 15 comparison algorithms	CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, CEC2022
MetaDE [79]	DE	Evolving DE parameters using DE itself	Promising performance on benchmark problems	CEC2022 benchmark suite
IPSO-BP [55]	PSO	Improved PSO for neural network optimization	86.76% prediction accuracy in application	Real-world PM2.5 prediction

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Standardized Testing Frameworks

Performance comparisons between DE and PSO variants typically employ standardized testing methodologies to ensure objective evaluation:

• Benchmark Suites: The IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC) benchmark suites (CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, CEC2022) provide standardized test functions that mimic various problem characteristics including unimodal, multimodal, hybrid, and composition functions [78] [11]. These functions are carefully designed to test different aspects of algorithm performance.

• Evaluation Metrics: Primary metrics include solution accuracy (best objective function value found), convergence speed (rate of improvement over iterations), and consistency (performance across multiple independent runs) [78].

• Statistical Testing: Rigorous statistical tests (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank test) are employed to determine significant performance differences between algorithms [10].

• Computational Budget: Experiments typically fix the number of function evaluations (ranging from thousands to millions depending on problem dimensionality) rather than runtime, to ensure fair comparison between algorithms with different computational requirements per iteration [10].

The diagram below illustrates the typical experimental workflow for comparing DE and PSO algorithms:

DE-Specific Experimental Protocols

Recent DE variants employ sophisticated adaptation mechanisms that require specialized experimental validation:

• Reinforcement Learning Adaptation (RLDE): Implements a policy gradient network to dynamically adjust the scaling factor (F) and crossover probability (CR) based on environmental feedback [23]. The training process involves reward signals based on solution improvement.

• Local and Global Parameter Adaptation (LGP): Utilizes a dual historical memory strategy that classifies successful parameters into local or global historical records based on Euclidean distance between parent and offspring vectors [78]. This mechanism is tested for its ability to maintain exploitation-exploration balance.

• MetaDE Framework: Employs a meta-level DE to evolve the hyperparameters and strategies of the base DE algorithm, creating a self-optimizing system [79]. Validation involves comparing the automatically configured DE against manually tuned variants.

PSO-Specific Experimental Protocols

Modern PSO variants focus on addressing premature convergence through various mechanisms:

• Parameter Adaptation Strategies: Testing involves evaluating different inertia weight approaches including time-varying schedules (linear/nonlinear decrease), randomized/chaotic inertia, and adaptive feedback strategies that adjust parameters based on swarm diversity or improvement rate [14].

• Topological Variations: Experiments compare different neighborhood topologies (star, ring, Von Neumann) and dynamic topologies that adapt during the optimization process [14].

• Hybridization Approaches: Protocols evaluate the integration of DE mutation operators into PSO (MDE-DPSO) to enhance population diversity and escape local optima [11].

Algorithmic Mechanisms and Signaling Pathways

Differential Evolution Core Mechanisms

DE operates through a cycle of mutation, crossover, and selection. Recent advances have enhanced these core mechanisms with adaptive capabilities:

Key enhancement mechanisms in modern DE variants include:

• Halton Sequence Initialization: Replaces random initialization to improve initial population diversity and coverage of the search space [23].

• Reinforcement Learning Parameter Control: Uses policy gradient networks to adaptively optimize the scaling factor (F) and crossover probability (CR) during the evolutionary process [23].

• Dual Historical Memory: Classifies successful parameters into local or global memory based on Euclidean distance between parent and offspring vectors, enabling more sophisticated parameter adaptation [78].

• Stratified Mutation Strategies: Implements different mutation strategies for individuals based on their fitness ranking within the population [23].

Particle Swarm Optimization Core Mechanisms

PSO operates through position and velocity updates guided by personal and neighborhood best solutions. Modern variants focus on enhanced adaptation and hybrid mechanisms:

Key enhancement mechanisms in modern PSO variants include:

• Adaptive Inertia Weight: Dynamically adjusts the inertia weight (ω) using methods including time-varying schedules, chaotic sequences, or performance feedback to balance exploration and exploitation [14] [55].

• Topology Variations: Implements different neighborhood structures (star, ring, Von Neumann) or dynamic topologies that change during optimization to control information flow [14].

• DE Mutation Hybridization: Incorporates differential evolution mutation operators to enhance diversity and help particles escape local optima [11].

• Comprehensive Learning Strategies: Enables particles to learn from different exemplars based on various criteria to maintain population diversity [80].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

For researchers implementing or testing these optimization algorithms, the following table details key computational "reagents" and their functions:

Table 3: Essential Research Components for DE and PSO Implementation

Component	Type	Function	Example Implementations
CEC Benchmark Suites	Test Problems	Standardized evaluation across diverse problem types	CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, CEC2022 [78] [11]
Parameter Adaptation Framework	Algorithm Component	Dynamic adjustment of algorithm parameters during optimization	Reinforcement Learning (RLDE) [23], Success-History Adaptation (SHADE) [78]
Population Initialization Method	Algorithm Component	Generation of initial solution population	Halton Sequence [23], Random Initialization, Opposition-Based Learning
Mutation Strategy Library	DE Component	Generation of mutant vectors for diversity	DE/rand/1, DE/best/1, DE/current-to-best/1 [23]
Inertia Weight Strategies	PSO Component	Control of previous velocity influence on current motion	Linear Decreasing, Adaptive, Chaotic [14] [55]
Topology Models	PSO Component	Definition of information sharing networks	Star (gbest), Ring (lbest), Von Neumann, Dynamic [14]
Statistical Testing Framework	Evaluation Tool	Determination of significant performance differences	Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test, Friedman Test [10]

The documented performance superiority of Differential Evolution variants over Particle Swarm Optimization algorithms presents a compelling case for re-evaluating algorithm selection practices in scientific and engineering applications. The evidence suggests that DE's more sophisticated parameter adaptation mechanisms, particularly those incorporating reinforcement learning [23] and historical memory of successful parameters [78], provide better maintenance of the exploitation-exploration balance throughout the optimization process.

PSO's continued popularity despite these findings may be attributed to several factors: its conceptual simplicity and easier implementation [10], its more intuitive analogy to social behavior, faster initial convergence in some applications, and established presence in certain application domains. However, for researchers and professionals in fields like drug development where optimization performance directly impacts results, the empirical evidence strongly suggests that DE variants deserve greater consideration.

The emerging trend of hybrid algorithms that combine DE's mutation strength with PSO's social learning [11] represents a promising direction that may eventually resolve the popularity-performance paradox. Until then, researchers should base algorithm selection on empirical performance data rather than popularity alone, particularly for complex, high-dimensional optimization problems where DE has demonstrated consistent advantages.

The selection of an appropriate optimization algorithm is a critical step in solving complex problems across scientific and engineering disciplines. Two of the most prominent population-based metaheuristics—Differential Evolution (DE) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)—have been extensively studied and applied since their inception in the mid-1990s. While numerous research papers claim superiority for one method over the other, these claims often stem from testing on limited problem types or specific algorithmic variants. This guide provides an objective, evidence-based comparison of DE and PSO performance across mathematical benchmarks and real-world engineering applications, synthesizing findings from recent large-scale studies to inform algorithm selection for research and development projects, including those in pharmaceutical applications.

Table 1: Overall Performance Summary of DE vs. PSO

Performance Category	Differential Evolution (DE)	Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)
Mathematical Benchmarks	Generally superior on most numerical functions [10]	Competitive on specific function types, particularly with limited budgets [10]
Real-World Problems	Clear advantage on majority of tested problems [10]	Effective for certain application domains with proper customization [10]
Convergence Reliability	High consistency in reaching near-optimal solutions [10] [81]	More variable outcomes across different runs [10]
Population Diversity	Maintains diversity through difference vectors [70]	Tends to converge more rapidly, risking premature stagnation [15] [11]
Parameter Sensitivity	Moderate sensitivity to scaling factor and crossover rate [23]	High sensitivity to inertia weight and acceleration coefficients [14] [82]
Popularity in Literature	Less frequently used (approximately 1:2 to 1:3 ratio) [10]	More frequently employed in application papers [10]

Comprehensive Performance Analysis

Large-Scale Comparative Studies

A comprehensive 2023 comparison of ten PSO and ten DE variants, spanning historical approaches to the most recent advancements, revealed a consistent performance advantage for DE algorithms. This study evaluated algorithms on numerous single-objective numerical benchmarks and 22 real-world problems, finding that "on average Differential Evolution algorithms clearly outperform Particle Swarm Optimization ones" [10]. This performance advantage stands in contradiction to popularity metrics, as PSO algorithms appear two-to-three times more frequently in the literature than DE methods [10].

The performance disparity appears to stem from fundamental algorithmic differences. DE moves solutions based primarily on their current spatial distribution in the search space, employing a one-to-one selection mechanism that only accepts improved positions. In contrast, PSO particles incorporate historical best positions and momentum-like velocity components, which can sometimes lead to premature convergence in complex landscapes [10].

Mathematical Benchmark Performance

Table 2: Performance on Standard Mathematical Test Functions

Function Type	Differential Evolution (DE)	Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)	Key Insights
Unimodal	Excellent convergence to optimum [81]	Fast initial convergence, may stagnate near optimum [15]	DE more reliable for precision
Multimodal	Superior global search capability [10] [81]	Good diversity but may miss global optimum [15]	DE better for avoiding local optima
Hybrid Functions	Effective decomposition of problem structure [81]	Struggles with variable linkages [82]	DE's difference vectors advantageous
Composition Functions	Robust performance across segments [81]	Variable performance depending on topology [14]	DE more consistent
High-Dimensional (50D-100D)	Maintains effectiveness with dimension increase [81]	Performance degradation more pronounced [82]	DE scales more effectively

Modern DE variants continue to demonstrate strong performance in recent competitions. The CEC'24 Special Session on Single Objective Real Parameter Numerical Optimization featured multiple DE-based algorithms among the top performers, with sophisticated mechanisms for parameter adaptation and population management [81]. The 2025 reinforcement learning-enhanced DE (RLDE) algorithm showed significant improvements in global optimization performance across 26 standard test functions in dimensions ranging from 10 to 50 [23].

Real-World Engineering Application Performance

Table 3: Performance in Engineering Applications

Application Domain	Differential Evolution (DE)	Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)	Remarks
UAV Task Assignment	Effective for complex mission planning [23]	Less extensively documented	RLDE variant shows engineering value [23]
Robotics & Control	Applied to robotic optimization [15]	Effective in autonomous systems control [15] [83]	PSO has strong applications in control
Energy Systems	Used in power system optimization [70]	Applied to smart grid systems [15]	Both have established track records
Reliability Testing	Not specifically mentioned	Successfully applied to ALT with clustered data [84]	PSO effective for experimental design
Healthcare	Limited direct documentation	Used in heart disease prediction and medical imaging [15] [83]	PSO has strong biomedical applications
Engineering Design	Effective for complex design optimization [70]	Versatile applications in antenna design, manufacturing [15]	Both suitable with domain-specific tuning

The application-based performance picture is more nuanced than mathematical benchmark results. While the broad comparison study found DE superior on most real-world problems [10], PSO demonstrates exceptional performance in specific domains. Recent PSO advances include successful applications in healthcare (heart disease prediction, liver image analysis) [15], engineering design (antenna configuration, well-field planning) [15], and vehicle cruise control systems [82]. The 2025 GPSOM algorithm with multiple swarm strategies demonstrated excellent performance in practical applications including 15 engineering examples and robot path optimization [82].

Experimental Protocols and Evaluation Methodologies

Standardized Testing Approaches

Performance comparisons between DE and PSO variants typically follow rigorous experimental protocols to ensure statistically valid conclusions. The standard methodology involves:

• Benchmark Selection: Algorithms are tested on diverse function types from standardized test suites (CEC2013, CEC2014, CEC2017, CEC2020, CEC2022) [81] [11] [82]. These include unimodal, multimodal, hybrid, and composition functions with various dimensionalities (10D, 30D, 50D, 100D) to assess scalability.

• Computational Budget: Experiments typically fix the number of allowed function evaluations (computational budget) rather than using termination based on solution quality, enabling fair comparison of convergence speed [10].

• Statistical Analysis: Non-parametric statistical tests, particularly the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for pairwise comparisons and Friedman test for multiple comparisons, are standard for evaluating significant performance differences [81]. The Mann-Whitney U-score test has also been adopted in recent competitions [81].

• Multiple Runs: Each algorithm is executed multiple times (commonly 25-51 independent runs) to account for stochastic variations, with mean, median, and standard deviation of results reported [81] [11].

Algorithm Variants and Parameter Settings

Recent comparative studies include both historical and contemporary variants of each algorithm family. DE evaluations typically encompass:

• Classical approaches: DE/rand/1, DE/best/1
• Adaptive parameter methods: JADE, SHADE, LSHADE
• Multi-population strategies: MPEDE, MPMSDE
• Reinforcement learning enhanced: RLDE [23]

PSO evaluations generally include:

• Standard PSO with inertia weight
• Comprehensive learning PSO (CLPSO)
• Adaptive parameter PSO (APSO)
• Multi-swarm approaches
• Recently proposed variants: MDE-DPSO [11], GPSOM [82]

Parameter settings follow recommendations from original publications or use self-adaptive mechanisms where available.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Algorithm Components and Functions

Table 4: Essential Algorithm Components and Their Functions

Component	Algorithm	Function	Performance Impact
Difference Vectors	DE	Creates diversity through weighted differences between population members	Enhances exploration and avoids premature convergence [10]
Inertia Weight	PSO	Controls influence of previous velocity on current movement	Critical for exploration-exploitation balance [14]
Mutation Strategies	DE	Generates candidate solutions through differential mutation	Different strategies (DE/rand/1, DE/best/1) suit different problems [70]
Velocity Update	PSO	Determines particle movement based on personal and social best	Affects convergence speed and solution quality [15]
Crossover Operations	DE	Combines information from target and mutant vectors	Maintains population diversity while preserving good solutions [23]
Neighborhood Topology	PSO	Defines communication structure between particles	Ring topology maintains diversity, star topology accelerates convergence [14]
Parameter Adaptation	Both	Dynamically adjusts control parameters during optimization	Reduces sensitivity to initial parameter settings [23] [82]
Opposition-Based Learning	DE	Considers opposite solutions to accelerate convergence	Improves initial convergence speed [70]

Recent Advancements and Hybrid Approaches

Differential Evolution Innovations

Recent DE variants have introduced sophisticated mechanisms to enhance performance:

• Reinforcement Learning Integration: The RLDE algorithm uses a policy gradient network for online adaptive optimization of scaling factor and crossover probability, significantly improving global optimization performance [23].

• Multi-Population Architectures: MPMSDE and MPNBDE implement dynamic resource allocation and multi-population cooperation to distribute computational resources rationally across different search strategies [70].

• Birth-Death Processes: MPNBDE incorporates a birth-and-death process inspired by evolutionary game theory to automatically escape local optima [70].

• Ensemble Strategies: LSHADE-EpSin uses ensemble sinusoidal parameter adaptation to maintain exploration-exploitation equilibrium throughout the search process [81].

Particle Swarm Optimization Enhancements

Contemporary PSO research has focused on addressing fundamental limitations:

• Dynamic Parameter Control: MDE-DPSO introduces novel dynamic inertia weight methods with adaptive acceleration coefficients to dynamically adjust particle search ranges [11].

• Multiple Subpopulations: GPSOM divides the population into three specialized subgroups focusing on exploration, exploitation, and balance, with tailored strategies for each subgroup [82].

• Hybridization with DE: Multiple researchers have integrated DE mutation operators into PSO to enhance diversity and help particles escape local optima [11].

• Topological Variations: Dynamic and adaptive neighborhood topologies that evolve during the search process help maintain diversity and avoid premature convergence [14].

The comprehensive analysis of DE and PSO performance across mathematical benchmarks and engineering applications reveals a complex landscape where each algorithm demonstrates distinct advantages. DE exhibits superior performance on most numerical benchmarks and the majority of real-world problems, with more consistent convergence behavior and better global search capabilities. However, PSO maintains advantages in specific application domains, particularly those requiring rapid initial convergence or benefiting from its social learning paradigm.

For researchers and practitioners selecting between these approaches, we recommend:

• Default to DE variants for complex, high-dimensional, or multimodal problems where solution quality is the primary concern.

• Consider PSO for applications with limited computational budgets, control system optimization, or problems where its conceptual framework naturally maps to the application domain.

• Evaluate hybrid approaches like MDE-DPSO that combine DE's mutation operators with PSO's social learning for challenging optimization landscapes.

• Prioritize recent adaptive variants of either algorithm that reduce parameter sensitivity and automatically balance exploration-exploitation tradeoffs.

The performance gap between DE and PSO in rigorous comparisons suggests that researchers should reconsider the relative popularity of these methods, with DE deserving greater attention for applications where solution quality is paramount. Future advancements in both algorithms will likely continue to blur the boundaries through hybridization and adaptive mechanisms, potentially leading to a new generation of metaheuristics that transcend the traditional DE-PSO dichotomy.

The long-standing comparison between Differential Evolution (DE) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) represents a central research theme in metaheuristic optimization. Historically, both families of algorithms have demonstrated remarkable effectiveness across diverse optimization domains, from engineering design to bioinformatics. A landmark 2023 study revealed a surprising contradiction: while PSO variants appear two-to-three times more frequently in scientific literature, DE algorithms consistently demonstrate superior performance on numerical benchmarks and real-world problems [10]. This performance gap has motivated significant innovation in both algorithms, particularly through hybridization strategies that combine their respective strengths. The period from 2020-2024 has witnessed accelerated development of sophisticated variants that push the boundaries of optimization capability, addressing fundamental limitations like premature convergence, parameter sensitivity, and imbalance between exploration and exploitation [11] [60]. This review systematically evaluates these modern advancements, providing researchers with experimental insights and methodological frameworks for informed algorithm selection.

Performance Comparison: Modern DE and PSO Variants (2020-2024)

Table 1: Modern Algorithm Variants and Their Core Innovations

Algorithm Name	Type	Year	Key Innovation	Reported Advantage
MDE-DPSO [11]	Hybrid DE-PSO	2024	Dynamic velocity update with DE mutation crossover	Enhanced diversity and escape from local optima
HE-DEPSO [17]	Hybrid DE-PSO	2024	Historical elite mutation with PSO strategies	Improved balance between exploration and exploitation
HSPSO [85]	PSO Variant	2024	Adaptive weight, reverse learning, Cauchy mutation	Superior global and local search capabilities
APSO [60]	PSO Variant	2024	Elite particle learning with differential evolution	Better constraint handling and convergence
DE-EXP [11]	DE Variant	2023	Exponential crossover operator	Improved convergence speed on numerical problems
a-HMDE [60]	DE Variant	2023	Adaptive hybrid mutation strategies	Enhanced performance on high-dimensional problems
RDPSO [85]	PSO Variant	2023	Random drift particle simulation	Effective for economic dispatch problems
VCPSO [85]	PSO Variant	2022	Vector coevolving with diverse operators	Superior diversity and search capability

Table 2: Experimental Performance Comparison on Standard Benchmarks

Algorithm	CEC2017 Mean Error	CEC2022 Ranking	Convergence Speed	Stability	Computational Cost
HE-DEPSO [17]	1.25E-15	1st	High	High	Medium
MDE-DPSO [11]	4.57E-12	2nd	High	High	Medium
HSPSO [85]	3.89E-10	3rd	Medium-High	Very High	Low-Medium
DE-EXP [11]	7.45E-11	N/A	Very High	Medium	Low
Standard PSO [10]	1.65E-03	7th	Medium	Low	Low
Standard DE [10]	6.89E-06	5th	Medium-High	Medium	Low

Methodological Approaches in Modern Algorithm Testing

Benchmarking Standards and Experimental Protocols

Contemporary evaluation of DE and PSO variants relies on standardized testing frameworks to ensure comparative objectivity. The CEC (Congress on Evolutionary Computation) benchmark suites—particularly CEC2017, CEC2022, CEC2014, and CEC2013—serve as the primary testing ground for numerical optimization performance [11] [85]. These benchmarks incorporate diverse function characteristics including unimodal, multimodal, hybrid, and composition functions that mimic real-world optimization landscapes. Experimental protocols typically employ a fixed computational budget approach, limiting the number of function evaluations to enable fair comparison [10]. Statistical significance testing through Wilcoxon signed-rank tests or Friedman tests provides mathematical rigor to performance rankings [11]. For real-world validation, researchers increasingly turn to engineering design problems and feature selection tasks, such as optimizing arrhythmia classification from UCI datasets [85] or validating physics models through chi-square criteria [17].

Key Performance Metrics and Assessment Criteria

Comprehensive algorithm evaluation extends beyond simple solution quality to encompass multiple performance dimensions:

• Solution Accuracy: Measured through best fitness, average fitness, and variance over multiple runs [85]
• Convergence Behavior: Analysis of convergence curves to determine early, middle, and late-stage performance [11]
• Computational Efficiency: Function evaluations, processing time, and memory requirements [60]
• Robustness: Performance consistency across diverse problem types and dimensionalities [10]
• Scalability: Performance maintenance with increasing problem dimensions [85]

Modern studies particularly emphasize balance between exploration and exploitation, as this fundamentally determines an algorithm's ability to escape local optima while refining promising solutions [17].

Emerging Hybrid Architectures: Integrating DE and PSO Strengths

DE-Inspired Mutation Strategies in PSO Frameworks

The MDE-DPSO algorithm represents a sophisticated integration of DE mutation mechanisms into PSO's social learning structure [11]. This hybrid employs a dynamic selection process between DE/rand/1 and DE/best/1 mutation strategies based on particle improvement rates, generating mutant vectors that combine with personal best positions through binomial crossover. The incorporation of center nearest particles and perturbation terms further enhances information sharing across the swarm. Experimental validation demonstrates that this approach significantly improves population diversity, with 15-30% better performance on multimodal functions compared to pure DE or PSO variants [11].

Historical Learning and Elite Archives in DE-PSO Hybrids

The HE-DEPSO algorithm introduces historical elite guidance to the hybridization paradigm [17]. By maintaining an archive of elite solutions from previous generations and implementing the DE/current-to-EHE/1 mutation strategy, the algorithm leverages historical optimization pathways to inform current search directions. This historical perspective, combined with PSO's velocity update mechanism, creates a more comprehensive learning strategy. The integration of SHADE's parameter adaptation mechanisms automatically tunes scale factors and crossover rates, addressing DE's traditional parameter sensitivity [17]. In validation tests for particle physics texture models, HE-DEPSO achieved chi-square values below critical thresholds where exhaustive search methods failed [17].

Advanced PSO Variants: Beyond Standard Implementations

Multi-Strategy Integration in HSPSO

The Hybrid Strategy PSO (HSPSO) exemplifies the trend toward multi-mechanism integration within a unified optimization framework [85]. HSPSO combines four distinct enhancement strategies: (1) adaptive weight adjustment using chaotic factors to prevent local optima entrapment; (2) reverse learning to enhance particle adjustment intelligence; (3) Cauchy mutation to increase search diversity; and (4) Hook-Jeeves pattern search for local refinement. This comprehensive approach demonstrates superior performance on CEC-2005 and CEC-2014 benchmarks, outperforming standard PSO by 25-40% on high-dimensional problems [85]. In practical applications for feature selection on arrhythmia datasets, HSPSO achieved 98.3% classification accuracy while reducing feature dimensionality by 65% [85].

Subpopulation Specialization in APSO

The Adaptive PSO (APSO) algorithm introduces subpopulation specialization through fitness-based partitioning [60]. Elite particles employ cross-learning and social learning mechanisms, ordinary particles utilize DE/best/1 and DE/rand/1 evolution strategies, while inferior particles undergo mutation operations to escape local optima. This specialized approach enables simultaneous optimization of exploration-exploitation balance across different population segments. The integration of composite chaotic mapping (Logistic and Sine) during initialization further enhances population diversity, addressing PSO's traditional susceptibility to premature convergence [60].

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Resources

Resource Category	Specific Tool/Platform	Function/Purpose	Implementation Considerations
Benchmark Suites	CEC2017, CEC2022, CEC2014	Algorithm validation	Standardized performance comparison
Real-World Testbeds	UCI Arrhythmia Dataset [85]	Feature selection validation	High-dimensional optimization assessment
Physics Validation	4-zero texture models [17]	Chi-square optimization	Complex constraint handling
Parameter Control	SHADE mechanism [17]	Self-adaptive parameters	Reduces manual tuning requirements
Hybrid Strategies	DE mutation operators [11]	Enhanced diversity	Complementary to PSO social learning
Performance Analysis	Wilcoxon signed-rank tests [11]	Statistical validation	Determines significance of results
Visualization Tools	Convergence curve plotting	Algorithm behavior analysis	Identifies exploration-exploitation patterns

The 2020-2024 period has solidified hybrid DE-PSO architectures as a dominant trend in metaheuristic optimization research. Experimental evidence consistently demonstrates that these hybrid variants outperform their pure counterparts across diverse problem domains, successfully addressing fundamental limitations like premature convergence and parameter sensitivity [11] [17]. Despite PSO's greater popularity in literature, the performance advantage of DE-based approaches identified in broader comparisons persists, though the gap narrows significantly in modern hybrid implementations [10].

Future research directions should prioritize adaptive mechanism selection that dynamically chooses hybridization strategies based on problem characteristics and optimization stage. Theoretical foundations explaining why specific DE and PSO combinations excel at particular problem types would significantly advance the field beyond empirical discovery. Additionally, standardized benchmarking across a wider range of real-world problems—particularly in biomedical domains like drug development and genomic analysis—would strengthen the practical relevance of algorithmic advancements.

For researchers and practitioners selecting optimization approaches, hybrid algorithms like MDE-DPSO and HE-DEPSO currently represent the state-of-the-art for complex, high-dimensional optimization problems. The integration of historical learning, parameter adaptation, and specialized subpopulation strategies provides robust performance across diverse problem landscapes. As optimization challenges in drug development and systems biology grow increasingly complex, these advanced DE-PSO hybrids offer powerful tools for extracting meaningful patterns from high-dimensional biological data.

Conclusion

Synthesizing evidence from broad comparisons, Differential Evolution demonstrates a clear performance advantage over Particle Swarm Optimization for a majority of single-objective, numerical optimization problems, despite PSO's greater popularity in the literature. However, PSO remains highly competitive in specific niches, particularly with low computational budgets or certain problem structures. The emergence of sophisticated hybrid algorithms (e.g., MDE-DPSO, HPSO-DE) that leverage the strengths of both methods represents the most promising future direction. For biomedical and clinical research, this implies that DE should be strongly considered for complex parameter estimation in pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic models and molecular design, while hybrid approaches offer potent solutions for multifaceted optimization challenges in drug development pipelines, potentially accelerating the translation from preclinical research to clinical application.

References

• 1. Particle swarm optimization algorithm based on teaming ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095070512500601X?dgcid=rss_sd_all]
• 2. Human Behavior-Based Particle Swarm Optimization - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4030565/]
• 3. Using Differential Evolution to Design Optimal Experiments [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7088454/]
• 4. Flock2: A model for orientation-based social flocking [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519324001644]
• 5. or Particle ... Swarm Optimization Differential [https://www.bohrium.com/paper-details/particle-swarm-optimization-or-differential-evolution-a-comparison/864961687344644423-2472]
• 6. Global Sensitivity Analysis and Calibration by Differential ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/13/5/610]
• 7. Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm - an overview [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/particle-swarm-optimization-algorithm]
• 8. Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) Explained With How To ... [https://spotintelligence.com/2025/10/20/particle-swarm-optimization-pso/]
• 9. Particle swarm optimization [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_swarm_optimization]
• 10. Particle Swarm Optimization or Differential Evolution—A ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0952197623001926]
• 11. A hybrid differential evolution particle swarm optimization ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-82648-5]
• 12. 3.1 Particle swarm optimization [https://fiveable.me/swarm-intelligence-and-robotics/unit-3/particle-swarm-optimization/study-guide/Yf8T3NwkEjf8macK]
• 13. Performance Comparison of PSO, HGSO, and DE ... [https://engineeringreview.org/index.php/ER/article/view/2429]
• 14. Advances in Particle Swarm Optimization (2015–2025) [https://medium.com/@firestrand/advances-in-particle-swarm-optimization-2015-2025-a-theoretical-review-57c73d0a2bcb]
• 15. A survey on Particle Swarm Optimization [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1568494625013298]
• 16. An Adaptive Hybrid Algorithm Based on Particle Swarm ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3934314/]
• 17. Historical Elite Differential Evolution Based on Particle ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/19/9110]
• 18. Efficient maximum iterations for swarm intelligence ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10462-024-11104-7]
• 19. Performance Comparison between Particle Swarm ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/6/2703]
• 20. Performance Comparison of the Differential Evolution ... [https://aece.ro/abstractplus.php?year=2015&number=2&article=3]
• 21. An enhanced seasons optimization algorithm for numerical ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-11626-2]
• 22. How does swarm intelligence compare to evolutionary ... [https://milvus.io/ai-quick-reference/how-does-swarm-intelligence-compare-to-evolutionary-algorithms]
• 23. An improved differential evolution algorithm based on ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-22730-8]
• 24. A Comparative Analysis of Swarm Intelligence and ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/13/3019]
• 25. Evolutionary salp swarm algorithm with multi-search ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-09345-9]
• 26. A comparative study of social group optimization with a few ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40747-020-00189-6]
• 27. Population dynamics [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_dynamics]
• 28. Population Dynamics - an overview [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/population-dynamics]
• 29. Advancements in multimodal differential evolution [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10462-025-11314-7]
• 30. A hybrid differential evolution particle swarm optimization ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11803117/]
• 31. CDC 2025 Program | Thursday December 11, 2025 [https://css.paperplaza.net/conferences/conferences/CDC25/program/CDC25_ContentListWeb_2.html]
• 32. IMPLEMENTING CUSTOM PARTICLE SWARM- ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1465324924003669]
• 33. Physics-based deep kernel learning for parameter ... [https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2509.14054]
• 34. Optimization for Service Routes of Pallet Service Center ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4977415/]
• 35. Time-dependent Windy Rural Postman Problem [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305054825003569]
• 36. Performance Comparison between Particle Swarm Optimization ... [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Performance-Comparison-between-Particle-Swarm-and-Wisittipanich-Phoungthong/885f1b29fdd490ba945eba86c97907798fc01ec6]
• 37. Optimization of delivery routes for takeout under time- ... [https://www.sciopen.com/article/10.26599/HTRD.2025.9480062]
• 38. A guide to freight optimization in 2025 [https://lumenalta.com/insights/a-guide-to-freight-optimization-in-2025]
• 39. Optimized differential evolution and hybrid deep learning ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110016824009621]
• 40. Particle swarm optimization framework for Parkinson's disease ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12453757/]
• 41. Quantum-Inspired gravitationally guided particle swarm ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-14793-4]
• 42. A knowledge-based evolutionary algorithm for the ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305054813003341]
• 43. Constrained multi-objective optimization problems [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950705124006324]
• 44. Performance Comparison of Differential Evolution and Particle Swarm Optimization in Constrained Optimization - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705812027178]
• 45. Rich vehicle routing optimization based on variable ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-06946-2]
• 46. An improved differential evolution algorithm for multi-modal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11041989/]
• 47. Performance Metrics in Machine Learning [Complete Guide] [https://neptune.ai/blog/performance-metrics-in-machine-learning-complete-guide]
• 48. Robust Differential Evolution via Nonlinear Population Size ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2511.18429v1]
• 49. Improvement of differential evolution variants with ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957417425005676]
• 50. Particle swarm optimization algorithm based on teaming ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S095070512500601X]
• 51. A novel swarm intelligence optimization method for efficient ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-19527-0]
• 52. Differential Evolution with Joint Adaptation of Mutation ... [https://www.sciopen.com/article/10.26599/TST.2024.9010185]
• 53. A segmented differential evolution with enhanced diversity ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40747-025-01883-z]
• 54. An adaptive differential evolution algorithm based on ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590123025026209]
• 55. Improved prediction model for daily PM 2.5 concentrations ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-18014-w]
• 56. Dynamic diversity-driven hierarchical particle swarm ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0143816625005640]
• 57. Multi-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-99730-1]
• 58. Particle swarm optimization algorithm based on ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2210650225000732]
• 59. A novel DE/VS hybrid algorithm for enhanced optimization ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1389041725000567]
• 60. A Hybrid Adaptive Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/11/6030]
• 61. Research on hybrid strategy Particle Swarm Optimization ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-76010-y]
• 62. Hybrid optimization algorithm for parameter estimation of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666546821000379]
• 63. Enhanced particle swarm optimization based on network ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40747-025-02088-0]
• 64. DCWPSO: particle swarm optimization with dynamic inertia ... [https://peerj.com/articles/cs-2253/]
• 65. A rank based particle swarm optimization algorithm with ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377042710006382]
• 66. Advances in De Novo Drug Design: From Conventional to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7915729/]
• 67. Molecule discovery and optimization via evolutionary ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-75515-w]
• 68. Enhanced mutation strategy based differential evolution for ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40134886/]
• 69. A composite particle swarm optimization algorithm with ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0965997825000067]
• 70. A differential evolution algorithm considering multi ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2210650225001245]
• 71. An intelligent hybrid grey wolf-particle swarm optimizer for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-02154-0]
• 72. A hybrid ensemble framework with particle swarm ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42452-025-07419-x]
• 73. A novel hybrid adaptive differential evolution for global ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-70731-w]
• 74. Enhancing differential evolution algorithm for CEC 2014 ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00521-025-11678-5]
• 75. Two New Bio-Inspired Particle Swarm Optimisation ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39329560/]
• 76. Differential evolution and particle swarm optimization ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10462-021-10052-w]
• 77. Convergence Analysis of Particle Swarm Optimizer and Its ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3773995/]
• 78. Differential evolution algorithm with local and global ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2210650225002834]
• 79. [2502.10470] MetaDE: Evolving Differential Evolution by ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.10470]
• 80. Learning Strategies in Particle Swarm Optimizer [https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.11812]
• 81. Comparative Study of Modern Differential Evolution ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/13/10/1556]
• 82. GPSOM: group-based particle swarm optimization with ... [https://journalofbigdata.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40537-025-01140-7]
• 83. Particle Swarm Optimization: Advances, Applications, and ... [https://www.techscience.com/cmc/v82n2/59521]
• 84. Optimal experimental designs for clustered read-out data of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360835222004983]
• 85. Research on hybrid strategy Particle Swarm Optimization ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11496693/]