Next Article in Journal
Biologicalization of Smart Manufacturing Using DNA-Based Computing
Next Article in Special Issue
Dynamic Population on Bio-Inspired Algorithms Using Machine Learning for Global Optimization
Previous Article in Journal
Bone Regeneration Induced by Patient-Adapted Mg Alloy-Based Scaffolds for Bone Defects: Present and Future Perspectives
Previous Article in Special Issue
Lyrebird Optimization Algorithm: A New Bio-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithm for Solving Optimization Problems
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Giant Armadillo Optimization: A New Bio-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithm for Solving Optimization Problems

1
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, The Hashemite University, P.O. Box 330127, Zarqa 13133, Jordan
2
Department of Matematics, Al Zaytoonah University of Jordan, Amman 11733, Jordan
3
Department of Data Sciences and Artificial Intelligence, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman 11942, Jordan
4
Department of Basic Sciences, German Jordanian University, Amman 11180, Jordan
5
Symbiosis Institute of Digital and Telecom Management, Constituent of Symbiosis International Deemed University, Pune 412115, India
6
Neuroscience Research Institute, Samara State Medical University, 89 Chapaevskaya str., 443001 Samara, Russia
7
Faculty of Social Sciences, Lobachevsky University, 603950 Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
8
Department of Electrical and Software Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
9
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Shiraz University of Technology, Shiraz 7155713876, Iran
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biomimetics 2023, 8(8), 619; https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics8080619
Submission received: 14 November 2023 / Revised: 12 December 2023 / Accepted: 13 December 2023 / Published: 17 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Bioinspired Algorithms)

Abstract

:
In this paper, a new bio-inspired metaheuristic algorithm called Giant Armadillo Optimization (GAO) is introduced, which imitates the natural behavior of giant armadillo in the wild. The fundamental inspiration in the design of GAO is derived from the hunting strategy of giant armadillos in moving towards prey positions and digging termite mounds. The theory of GAO is expressed and mathematically modeled in two phases: (i) exploration based on simulating the movement of giant armadillos towards termite mounds, and (ii) exploitation based on simulating giant armadillos’ digging skills in order to prey on and rip open termite mounds. The performance of GAO in handling optimization tasks is evaluated in order to solve the CEC 2017 test suite for problem dimensions equal to 10, 30, 50, and 100. The optimization results show that GAO is able to achieve effective solutions for optimization problems by benefiting from its high abilities in exploration, exploitation, and balancing them during the search process. The quality of the results obtained from GAO is compared with the performance of twelve well-known metaheuristic algorithms. The simulation results show that GAO presents superior performance compared to competitor algorithms by providing better results for most of the benchmark functions. The statistical analysis of the Wilcoxon rank sum test confirms that GAO has a significant statistical superiority over competitor algorithms. The implementation of GAO on the CEC 2011 test suite and four engineering design problems show that the proposed approach has effective performance in dealing with real-world applications.

1. Introduction

There are many problems in mathematics, science, and real-world applications that have more than one feasible solution. These types of problems are known as optimization problems, and the process of obtaining the best feasible solution among all these existing solutions is called optimization [1]. Each optimization problem is mathematically modeled using three main parts: decision variables, problem constraints, and an objective function. The goal in optimization is to allocate appropriate values for decision variables so that the objective function is optimized by respecting the constraints of the problem [2]. There are numerous optimization problems in science, mathematics, engineering, technology, industry, and real-world applications that need to be solved using optimization techniques. Problem-solving techniques for solving optimization problems are classified into two classes: deterministic and stochastic approaches [3]. Deterministic approaches in two categories, gradient-based and non-gradient-based, are effective in solving linear, convex, continuous, differentiable, and low-dimensional problems [4]. However, as optimization problems become more complex, especially as the problem dimensions increase, deterministic approaches stop getting stuck in local optima [5]. This is despite the fact that many practical optimization problems are non-linear, non-convex, non-differentiable, non-continuous, and high-dimensional. The disadvantages of deterministic approaches in order to solve practical optimization problems in science have led to researchers’ efforts in designing stochastic approaches [6].
Metaheuristic algorithms are among the most efficient and well-known stochastic approaches that have been used to deal with numerous optimization problems. These algorithms are able to provide suitable solutions for optimization problems based on random search in the problem-solving space and benefit from random operators and trial-and-error processes. The optimization mechanism in metaheuristic algorithms starts with the random generation of a certain number of candidate solutions under the name of algorithm population. Then, these candidate solutions are improved during successive iterations and based on the population update steps of the algorithm. After the full implementation of the algorithm, the best candidate solution obtained is presented as a solution to the problem [7]. The nature of stochastic search results in no guarantee of definitively achieving the global optimum using metaheuristic algorithms. However, due to being close to the global optimum, the solutions obtained from metaheuristic algorithms are acceptable as pseudo-optimal [8]. The desire of researchers to achieve more effective solutions closer to the global optimum for optimization problems has led to the design of numerous metaheuristic algorithms [9]. These metaheuristic algorithms have been used to tackle optimization problems in various sciences, such as static optimization problems [10], green product design [11], feature selection [12], design for disassembly [13], image segmentation [14], and wireless sensor network applications [15].
Metaheuristic algorithms will be able to achieve effective solutions for optimization problems when they search the problem-solving space well at both global and local levels. Global search expresses the exploration power of the algorithm in the extensive search in the problem-solving space with the aim of discovering the main optimal area and preventing the algorithm from getting stuck in local optima. Local search represents the exploitation power of the algorithm in the exact search near the promising areas of the problem-solving space and the discovered solutions. In addition to exploration and exploitation abilities, what leads to the success of a metaheuristic algorithm in providing a suitable solution for an optimization problem is their balancing during the search process in the problem-solving space [16].
The main research question is: according to the many metaheuristic algorithms designed so far, is there still a need to introduce newer metaheuristic algorithms in science or not? In response to this question, the No Free Lunch (NFL) [17] theorem explains that the successful performance of a metaheuristic algorithm in solving a set of optimization problems is no guarantee for the similar performance of that algorithm in solving other optimization problems. In fact, an algorithm may even converge to the global optimum in solving an optimization problem but fail in solving another problem by getting stuck in the local optimum. Therefore, there is no assumption about the failure or success of implementing a metaheuristic algorithm on an optimization problem. The NFL theorem explains that in no way can it be claimed that a unique metaheuristic algorithm is the best optimizer for all optimization problems. The NFL theorem, by keeping active the studies of metaheuristic algorithms, motivates researchers to be able to achieve more effective solutions for optimization problems by designing newer algorithms.
The innovation and novelty of this paper is the introduction of a new metaheuristic algorithm called Giant Armadillo Optimization (GAO) to solve optimization problems in various sciences. The main contributions of this study are as follows:
  • GAO is designed based on simulating the natural behavior of giant armadillos in the wild.
  • The fundamental inspiration for GAO is taken from the strategy of giant armadillos when attacking termite mounds.
  • The GAO theory has been described and mathematically modeled in two phases: (i) exploration based on simulating the movement of giant armadillos towards termite mounds, and (ii) exploitation based on simulating giant armadillos’ digging skills in order to prey on and rip open termite mounds.
  • The performance of GAO is evaluated on the CEC 2017 test suite for problem dimensions of 10, 30, 50, and 100.
  • The performance of GAO in handling real-world applications is evaluated in handling twenty-two constrained optimization problems from the CEC 2011 test suite and four engineering design problems.
  • The results obtained from GAO are compared with the performance of twelve well-known metaheuristic algorithms.
The proposed GAO approach has several advantages for global optimization problems. The first advantage of GAO is that there is no control parameter in the design of this algorithm, and therefore there is no need to control the parameters in any way. The second advantage of GAO is its high effectiveness in dealing with a variety of optimization problems in various sciences as well as complex, high-dimensional problems. The third advantage of the proposed GAO method is that it shows its great ability to balance exploration and exploitation in the search process, which allows it high-speed convergence to provide suitable values for decision variables in optimization tasks, especially in complex problems. The fourth advantage of the proposed GAO is its powerful performance in handling real-world optimization applications.
The structure of this paper is as follows: A literature review is presented in Section 2. Then, the proposed Giant Armadillo Optimization (GAO) is introduced and modeled in Section 3. Simulation studies and results are presented in Section 4. The effectiveness of GAO in solving real-world applications is investigated in Section 5. Conclusions and suggestions for future research are provided in Section 6.

2. Literature Review

Metaheuristic algorithms have been developed with inspiration from various natural phenomena, the behaviors of living organisms in the wild, genetic, biological, and physics sciences, game rules, human interactions, and other evolutionary phenomena. Metaheuristic algorithms are classified into five groups based on the main idea in design: swarm-based, evolutionary-based, physics-based, human-based, and game-based approaches.
Swarm-based metaheuristic algorithms are inspired by the lifestyles of animals, birds, insects, aquatics, reptiles, and other living creatures in the wild. The most well-known algorithms in this group are: Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) [18], Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) [19], Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) [20], and Firefly Algorithm (FA) [21]. PSO is inspired by the group movement of flocks of birds and fish towards food sources. ACO is inspired by the ability of ants to discover the optimal communication path between the colony and the food source. ABC is inspired by the activities of colony bees searching for food sources. FA is inspired by optical communication between fireflies. The Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO) is a swarm-based metaheuristic algorithm that is inspired by the hierarchical leadership structure and social behavior of gray wolves during hunting [22]. Green Anaconda Optimization (GAO) is inspired by the ability of male green anacondas to detect the position of females during the mating season and the hunting strategy of green anacondas [23]. Among the natural behaviors of living organisms in the wild, foraging, hunting, digging, migration, and chasing are much more prominent and have been employed in the design of algorithms such as: Honey Badger Algorithm (HBA) [24], African Vultures Optimization Algorithm (AVOA), Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA) [25], Orca Predation Algorithm (OPA) [26], Reptile Search Algorithm (RSA) [27], Kookaburra Optimization Algorithm (KOA) [28], Mantis Search Algorithm (MSA) [29], Liver Cancer Algorithm (LCA) [30], Marine Predator Algorithm (MPA) [31], Tunicate Swarm Algorithm (TSA) [32], White Shark Optimizer (WSO) [33], and Golden Jackal Optimization (GJO) [34].
Evolutionary-based metaheuristic algorithms are designed with inspiration from genetic and biological sciences, concepts of natural selection, survival of the fittest, Darwin’s theory of evolution, and evolutionary operators. Genetic Algorithm (GA) [35] and Differential Evolution (DE) [36] are the most famous algorithms of this group, which are developed inspired by the reproduction process, genetic and biological concepts, and evolutionary-random operators of crossover, selection, and mutation. Artificial Immune Systems (AISs) are inspired by the mechanisms of the human body’s immune system against microbes and diseases [37]. Some other evolutionary-based metaheuristic algorithms are: Genetic programming (GP) [38], Cultural Algorithm (CA) [39], and Evolution Strategy (ES) [40].
Physics-based metaheuristic algorithms are designed with inspiration from the phenomena, forces, transformations, laws, and concepts of physics. Simulated Annealing (SA) is one of the most widely used algorithms of this group, which is inspired by the annealing process of metals, in which metals are first melted under heat, then slowly cooled with the aim of achieving an ideal crystal. Physical forces and Newton’s laws of motion have been the source of design in algorithms such as the Momentum Search Algorithm (MSA) [41] based on momentum force, the Gravitational Search Algorithm (GSA) based on gravitational attraction force [42], and the Spring Search Algorithm (SSA) [43] based on the elastic force of the spring and Hooke’s law. Cosmological concepts have been the origin of design in algorithms such as the Multi-Verse Optimizer (MVO) [44] and the Black Hole Algorithm (BHA) [45]. Some other physics-based metaheuristic algorithms are: Archimedes Optimization Algorithm (AOA) [46], Water Cycle Algorithm (WCA) [47], Artificial Chemical Process (ACP) [48], Chemotherapy Science Algorithm (CSA) [49], Nuclear Reaction Optimization (NRO) [50], Henry Gas Optimization (HGO) [51], Electro-Magnetism Optimization (EMO) [52], Lichtenberg Algorithm (LA) [53], Thermal Exchange Optimization (TEO) [54], and Equilibrium Optimizer (EO) [55].
Human-based metaheuristic algorithms are designed with inspiration from thoughts, choices, decisions, communication, interactions, and other human activities in individual and social life. Teaching-Learning-Based Optimization (TLBO) is one of the most famous human-based metaheuristic algorithms, which is introduced with the inspiration of educational communication in the classroom environment and the exchange of knowledge between teachers and students and students with each other [56]. The Mother Optimization Algorithm (MOA) is proposed based on the modeling of Eshrat’s care of her children [57]. Doctor and Patient Optimization (DPO) is introduced based on modeling the process of treating patients by doctors [58]. Sewing Training-Based Optimization (STBO) is proposed with the inspiration of teaching sewing skills by the instructor to students in sewing schools [59]. Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves (AFT) is presented based on modeling the strategies of forty thieves in the search for Ali Baba [60]. Some other human-based metaheuristic algorithms are: Election-Based Optimization Algorithm (EBOA) [61], Coronavirus Herd Immunity Optimizer (CHIO) [62], Group Teaching Optimization Algorithm (GTOA) [63], Ebola Optimization Search Algorithm (ESOA) [64], Driving Training-Based Optimization (DTBO) [5], Gaining Sharing Knowledge-Based Algorithm (GSK) [65], and War Strategy Optimization (WSO) [66].
Game-based metaheuristic algorithms are inspired by the rules governing individual and team games and the strategies of players, coaches, referees, and other influential people in these games. Darts Game Optimizer (DGO) is one of the most well-known game-based metaheuristic algorithms, whose design is inspired by the strategy and skill of players in throwing darts and collecting points [67]. Hide Object Game Optimizer (HOGO) is proposed based on the simulation of players’ strategies for finding the hidden object on the playing field [68]. The Orientation Search Algorithm (OSA) is designed based on modeling the players’ position changes on the playing field based on the referee’s commands [69]. Some other game-based metaheuristic algorithms are: Ring toss game-based optimization (RTGBO) [70], Football Game Based Optimization (FGBO) [71], Archery Algorithm (AA) [6], Golf Optimization Algorithm (GOA) [72], and Volleyball Premier League (VPL) [73].
Some other recently proposed metaheuristic algorithms are: Monarch Butterfly Optimization (MBO) [74], Slime Mould Algorithm (SMA) [75], Moth Search Algorithm (MSA) [76], Hunger Games Search (HGS) [77], Runge Kutta method (RUN) [78], Colony Predation Algorithm (CPA) [79], weighted mean of vectors (INFO) [80], Harris Hawks Optimization (HHO) [81], and Rime optimization algorithm (RIME) [82].
Based on the best knowledge obtained from the literature review, no metaheuristic algorithm inspired by the natural behavior of giant armadillos in nature has been designed so far. This is while the strategy of giant armadillos in attacking termite mounds and digging them is an intelligent process that has a special potential for designing a new optimizer. In order to address this research gap, a new bio-inspired metaheuristic algorithm is introduced in this paper based on the mathematical modeling of the strategy of giant armadillos in attacking and hunting in termite mounds, which is discussed in the next section.

3. Giant Armadillo Optimization

In this section, the source of inspiration in the design of the proposed Giant Armadillo Optimization (GAO) approach is stated, and then it is mathematically modeled in order to use it in optimization applications.

3.1. Inspiration for GAO

The giant armadillo (Priodontes maximus) is the largest living species of armadillo in danger of extinction and lives in South America, ranging as far south as northern Argentina [83]. Termites and ants are the main diet of giant armadillos. However, this animal also feeds on plants, larvae, worms, and larger creatures, such as snakes and spiders. In order to feed on termites, giant armadilloes attack termite mounds and then use their digging power to prey on and rip open termite mounds.
The giant armadillo has 3 or 4 hinged bands protecting the neck and another 11 to 13 hinged bands that protect the body [84]. Its body is dark brown with a lighter yellowish band along the sides, and its head is pale and yellowish-white. It also has very long front paws, up to 22 cm long. The tail is covered in small, rounded scales. The giant armadillo is almost entirely hairless. Giant armadillos weigh approximately 18.7–32.5 kg, although specimens weighing 54 kg and 80 kg have also been observed. Their length without including the tail is between 75 and 100 cm, and the length of their tail is about 50 cm [85]. An image of the giant armadillo is shown in Figure 1.
Among the natural behaviors of the giant armadillo, the strategy of this animal when it attacks termite mounds and then digs them with the aim of hunting and feeding on termites is much more prominent. Mathematical modeling of these two natural behaviors of giant armadillos during hunting, namely (i) attacking termite mounds and (ii) digging termite mounds in order to feed on them, has been employed in the design of the proposed GAO approach, which is discussed below.
Among the natural behaviors of giant armadillos, the hunting strategy of this animal is much more prominent. The giant armadillo hunting process has two stages: (i) moving towards termite mounds and (ii) digging in termite mounds in order to feed on termites. Mathematical modeling of these natural behaviors of the giant armadillo during hunting is employed in the design of the proposed GAO approach, which is discussed below.

3.2. Solution Process of the GAO

The proposed GAO approach is a biomimetics metaheuristic algorithm that mimics the natural behavior of the giant armadillo in the wild. Among the natural behaviors of the giant armadillo, the strategy of this animal in attacking termite mounds and then digging in them for feeding is employed in the GAO design. In this modeling, the wild life of the giant armadillo corresponds to the problem-solving space, and the position of each giant armadillo in the wild corresponds to the position of each GAO member in the problem-solving space as a candidate solution. The general solution process of the algorithm in GAO is explained in Algorithm 1.
Algorithm 1: Solution process of GAO
Start.
  • A certain number of giant armadillos are randomly initialized in the problem-solving space as a population of the algorithm, each representing a candidate solution for the problem.
  • Based on the evaluation of each of the candidate solutions in the objective function and the comparison of the obtained values, the best GAO member is identified as the best candidate solution.
  • In the first phase of the GAO, based on the modeling of the movement of the giant armadillo towards the termite mounds, the position of the GAO members in the problem-solving space and, as a result, the candidate solutions are updated.
  • In the second phase of GAO, based on the modeling of the small displacements of the giant armadillo while digging in termite mounds, the position of GAO members in the problem-solving space and, as a result, candidate solutions are updated.
  • The third and fourth steps are repeated for all GAO members.
  • Based on the comparison of the new evaluated values for the objective function corresponding to the updated candidate solutions, the best candidate solution is identified, updated, and stored.
  • The third to sixth steps are repeated until the last iteration of the algorithm.
  • The best candidate solution obtained during the iterations of the algorithm is presented as the GAO solution for the given problem.
End.
In the following, the solution process described for GAO is mathematically modeled in full.

3.3. Mathematical Modeling of GAO

In this subsection, the implementation steps of GAO are fully modeled. For this purpose, first, the initialization process of GAO has been explained and modeled. Then, the mathematical model of the process of updating candidate solutions in two phases of exploration and exploitation is presented.

3.3.1. Algorithm Initialization

The proposed GAO approach is a population-based meta-heuristic algorithm that assumes that giant armadillos form its population. GAO is able to provide suitable solutions for optimization problems in an iterative process based on the search power of its members in the problem-solving space. Each GAO member, based on his position in the problem-solving space, determines the values for the decision variables of the problem. Therefore, each giant armadillo, as a member of the population, is a candidate solution to the problem that is modeled from a mathematical point of view using a vector. Giant armadillos together form the population of the algorithm, which can be modeled from a mathematical point of view using a matrix according to Equation (1). The primary position of the giant armadillos in the problem-solving space is randomly initialized at the beginning of the algorithm execution using Equation (2).
X = [ X 1 X i X N ] N × m = [ x 1 , 1 x 1 , d x 1 , m x i , 1 x i , d x i , m x N , 1 x N , d x N , m ] N × m
x i , d = l b d + r · ( u b d l b d )
Here, X is the GAO population matrix, X i is the i th GAO member (candidate solution), x i , d is its d th dimension in search space (decision variable), N is the number of giant armadillos, m is the number of decision variables, r is a random number in interval [ 0 , 1 ] , l b d , and u b d are the lower bound and upper bound of the d th. decision variable, respectively.
Since the position of each giant armadillo in the problem-solving space represents a candidate solution for the problem, a value for the objective function can be evaluated corresponding to each giant armadillo. According to this, the set of evaluated values for the objective function can be represented using Equation (3).
F = [ F 1 F i F N ] N × 1 = [ F ( X 1 ) F ( X i ) F ( X N ) ] N × 1
Here, F is the vector of the evaluated objective function, and F i is the evaluated objective function based on the i th GAO member.
The evaluated values for the objective function provide valuable information about the quality of the candidate solutions proposed by the population members. The best value obtained for the objective function corresponds to the best member (i.e., the best candidate solution), and the worst value obtained for the objective function corresponds to the worst member (i.e., the worst candidate solution). Since in each iteration, the position of the giant armadillos in the problem-solving space is updated, the best member should also be updated based on the comparison of the updated values for the objective function. At the end of the implementation of the algorithm, the position of the best member obtained during the iterations of the algorithm is presented as a solution to the problem.
In the design of the proposed GAO approach, the position of the population members in the problem-solving space is updated based on the modeling of the hunting strategy of giant armadillos in the wild. In this process, the giant armadillo first attacks the position of termite mounds, then digs in termite mounds to hunt and eat termites. According to this, in each iteration of GAO, the position of the population members is updated in two phases: (i) exploration, based on the simulation of the movement of giant armadillos towards termite mounds, and (ii) exploitation, based on the simulation of giant armadillos digging in termite mounds to feed on termites.

3.3.2. Phase 1: Attack on Termite Mounds (Exploration Phase)

In the first phase of GAO, the position of the population members in the problem-solving space is updated based on the simulation of the attack of the giant armadillo towards the termite mounds during hunting. In the GAO design, it is inspired by the changing position of the giant armadillo while moving towards the termite mounds in order to update the position of the population members in the problem-solving space. Modeling this attack process leads to extensive changes in the position of the giant armadillo and, as a result, increases the exploration power of the algorithm in global search management.
In the GAO design, for each population member that represents a giant armadillo, the location of other population members that have a better objective function value is considered a termite mound. The set of candidate termite mounds for each member of the population is specified using Equation (4).
T M i = { X k : F k < F i   and   k i } ,   where   i = 1 , 2 ,   ,   N   and   k { 1 , 2 ,   ,   N }
Here, T M i is the set of candidate termite mounds’ locations for the i th giant armadillo, X k is the population member with a better objective function value than the i th giant armadillo, and F k is its objective function value.
The giant armadillo randomly selects one of the candidate termite mounds and attacks it. Based on modeling the movement of giant armadilloes towards termite mounds, a new position is calculated for each member of the population using Equation (5). Then, this new position replaces the previous position of the corresponding member if it improves the value of the objective function according to Equation (6).
x i , j P 1 = x i , j + r i , j · ( S T M i , j I i , j · x i , j ) ,
X i = { X i P 1 ,     F i P 1 F i , X i ,     e l s e ,
Here, S T M i is the selected termite mound for i th giant armadillo, S T M i , j is its j th dimension, X i P 1 is the new position calculated for the i th giant armadillo based on attacking phase of the proposed GAO, x i , j P 1 is its j th dimension, F i P 1 is its objective function value, r i , j are random numbers from the interval [ 0 ,   1 ] , and I i , j are numbers which are randomly selected as 1 or 2.

3.3.3. Phase 2: Digging in Termite Mounds (Exploitation Phase)

In the second phase of GAO, the position of population members in the problem-solving space is updated based on the simulation of giant armadillo digging in termite mounds to feed on termites. Modeling this giant armadillo digging process with the aim of hunting and eating termites leads to small changes in the position of the giant armadillo and, as a result, increases the exploitation power of the algorithm in local search management.
In the GAO design, based on modeling the skill of the giant armadillo to dig in termite mounds, a new position is calculated for each member of the population using Equation (7). Then, if the value of the objective function is improved, this new position replaces the previous position of the corresponding member according to Equation (8).
x i , j P 2 = x i , j + ( 1 2   r i , j ) · u b j l b j t    
X i = { X i P 2 ,     F i P 2 F i X i ,     e l s e
Here, X i P 2 is the new position calculated for the i th giant armadillo based on digging phase of the proposed GAO, x i , j P 2 is its j th dimension, F i P 2 is its objective function value, r i , j are random numbers from the interval [ 0 ,   1 ] , and t is the iteration counter.

3.4. Repetition Process, Pseudocode, and Flowchart of GAO

After updating the position of all giant armadillos in the problem-solving space based on the attack and digging phases, the first iteration of GAO is completed. After that, the algorithm enters the next iteration, and the process of updating the position of giant armadillos in the problem-solving space continues until the last iteration of the algorithm using Equations (4)–(8). In each iteration, the position of the best GAO member is updated and stored as the best candidate solution. After the full implementation of GAO on the given problem, the best candidate solution recorded during the iterations of the algorithm is presented as the solution to the problem. The implementation steps of GAO are presented as a flowchart in Figure 2, and its pseudocode is presented in Algorithm 2. The complete set of codes is available at the following repository: https://uk.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/156329-giant-armadillo-optimization (accessed on 13 November 2023).
Algorithm 2: Pseudocode of GAO
Start GAO.
1.Input problem information: variables, objective function, and constraints.
2.Set GAO population size (N) and iterations (T).
3.Generate the initial population matrix at random using Equation (2). x i , d l b d + r · ( u b d l b d )
4.Evaluate the objective function.
5. For t = 1 to T
6. For i = 1 to N
7. Phase 1: Attack on termite mounds (exploration phase)
8. Determine the termite mounds set for the ith GAO member using Equation (4). T M i { X k i : F k i < F i   and   k i i }
9. Select the termite mounds for the ith GAO member at random.
10. Calculate new position of ith GAO member using Equation (5). x i , d P 1 x i , d + r · ( S T M i , d I · x i , d )
11. Update ith GAO member using Equation (6). X i { X i P 1 ,     F i P 1 < F i X i ,     e l s e
12. Phase 2: Digging in termite mounds (exploitation phase)
13. Calculate new position of ith GAO member using Equation (7). x i , d P 2 x i , d + ( 1 2 r ) · ( u b d l b d ) t
14. Update ith GAO member using Equation (8). X i { X i P 2 ,     F i P 2 < F i X i ,     e l s e
15. end
16. Save the best candidate solution so far.
17. end
18.Output the best quasi-optimal solution obtained with the GAO.
End GAO.

3.5. Computational Complexity of GAO

In this subsection, the computational complexity of the proposed GAO approach is evaluated. The preparation and initialization process of GAO has a computational complexity equal to O(Nm), where N is the number of giant armadillos and m is the number of decision variables of the problem. In the GAO design, in each iteration, the position of each giant armadillo is updated in two phases of exploration and exploitation. Therefore, the GAO update process has a computational complexity equal to O(2NmT), where T is the maximum number of iterations of the algorithm. According to this, the total computational complexity of the proposed GAO approach is equal to O(Nm(1 + 2T)).

3.6. Comparing GAO vs. PSO

In this subsection, the proposed GAO approach is compared with PSO. PSO is a well-known bio-inspired metaheuristic algorithm that has been used in many optimization applications by researchers.
In terms of the main design idea, PSO is inspired by the collective movement of groups of birds or fish that are searching for food. On the other hand, GAO was inspired by the giant armadillo’s strategy of attacking termite mounds and digging to feed on them. So, the difference in the main design idea is evident.
In PSO, the position of each member of the population is updated according to the position of the best member of the population and the previous best position of the corresponding member. On the other hand, the position of each member of the population in the problem-solving space is updated based on the position of a better member (from the point of view of comparing the value of the objective function) and also based on local search management near each member’s position.
A very important point in GAOs performance is that it has avoided a heavy dependence of the population update process on the best members. These conditions lead to the improvement of GAOs performance in global search management, preventing premature convergence, and preventing the algorithm from getting stuck in local optima. Meanwhile, in the design of PSO, the update process relies heavily on the position of the best member, which leads to inappropriate rapid convergence and stops the entire population from adopting a similar solution.
Another important point in the design of metaheuristic algorithms is the control parameters. Determining the values of control parameters is a challenging process, and for this reason, the design of parameter-less approaches is considered a major advantage. The mathematical model of PSO has three control parameters, the value of which has a significant impact on the performance of this algorithm. This is despite the fact that no control parameters are included in the design of GAO, and from this point of view, GAO is a parameter-less approach.

4. Simulation Studies and Results

In this section, GAOs performance in solving optimization problems is evaluated. For this purpose, the efficiency of GAO is tested in handling the CEC 2017 test suite for problem dimensions equal to 10, 30, 50, and 100.

4.1. Performance Comparison

In order to measure the effectiveness of GAO in solving optimization problems, the obtained results are compared with the performance of twelve famous metaheuristic algorithms: GA [35], PSO [18], GSA [42], TLBO [56], MVO [44], GWO [22], WOA [25], MPA [31], TSA [32], RSA [27], AVOA [86], and WSO [33]. From the numerous optimization algorithms designed so far, these twelve methods have been selected for comparison with GAO. The reason for choosing these twelve competitor algorithms is that GA and PSO are the best-known and most widely used optimization algorithms. GSA, TLBO, MVO, and GWO, introduced between 2009 and 2016, have been popular methods for researchers and have been widely cited. WOA, MPA, and TSA algorithms are among the most widely used techniques introduced from 2016 to 2020. RSA, AVOA, and WSO are recently developed optimizers that have quickly gained the attention of scientists and have been used in a variety of real-world applications. The control parameter values of metaheuristic algorithms are specified in Appendix A and Table A1. The results of simulation studies are presented using six statistical indicators: mean, best, worst, standard deviation (std), median, and rank. The values obtained for the mean index are used as a ranking criterion for metaheuristic algorithms in handling each of the benchmark functions.

4.2. Evaluation of the CEC 2017 Test Suite

In this subsection, the performance of GAO and competitor algorithms is benchmarked in handling the CEC 2017 test suite for problem dimensions equal to 10, 30, 50, and 100. The CEC 2017 test suite has 30 standard benchmark functions consisting of (i) three unimodal functions of C17-F1 to C17-F3, (ii) seven multimodal functions of C17-F4 to C17-F10, (iii) ten hybrid functions of C17-F11 to C17-F20, and (iv) ten composition functions of C17-F21 to C17-F30. The C17-F2 functional is excluded from simulation studies due to its unstable behavior. Full information and more details about the CEC 2017 test suite are available at [87].
The implementation results of GAO and competitor algorithms on the CEC 2017 test suite are reported in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4. Boxplot diagrams obtained from the performance of metaheuristic algorithms are drawn in Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6.
Based on the analysis of the simulation results, the proposed GAO approach in handling the CEC 2017 test suite, for problem dimensions equal to 10 (m = 10), is the first best optimizer for functions C17-F1, C17-F3 to C17-F21, C17-F23, C17-F24, and C17-F27 to C17-F30 (i.e., 26 functions from 29 functions). Therefore, for problem dimensions equal to 10 (m = 10), GAO has been the first best optimizer in 26 out of 29 functions (i.e., 89.65% of test functions) and has provided superior performance compared to competing algorithms.
For problem dimensions equal to 30 (m = 30), the proposed GAO approach is the first best optimizer for functions C17-F1, C17-F3 to C17-F22, C17-F24, C17-F25, and C17-F27 to C17-F30. Therefore, for problem dimensions equal to 30 (m = 30), GAO has been the best optimizer in 27 out of 29 functions (i.e., 93.10% of test functions) and has provided superior performance compared to competing algorithms.
For problem dimensions equal to 50 (m = 50), the proposed GAO approach is the first best optimizer for functions C17-F1, C17-F3 to C17-F25, and C17-F27 to C17-F30. Therefore, for problem dimensions equal to 50 (m = 50), GAO has been the best optimizer in 28 out of 29 functions (i.e., 96.55% of test functions) and has provided superior performance compared to competing algorithms.
For problem dimensions equal to 100 (m = 100), the proposed GAO approach is the first best optimizer for functions C17-F1, C17-F3, and C17-F30. Therefore, for problem dimensions equal to 100 (m = 100), GAO has been the first best optimizer in 29 out of 29 functions (i.e., 100% of test functions) and has provided superior performance compared to competing algorithms.
The optimization results show that the proposed GAO approach has achieved good results for the benchmark functions, with high abilities in exploration, exploitation, and balance during the search process. What is clear from the simulation results is that GAO has provided superior performance by providing better results for most benchmark functions compared to competitor algorithms in dealing with the CEC 2017 test suite for problem dimensions equal to 10, 30, 50, and 100.

4.3. Statistical Analysis

In this subsection, using statistical analysis of the obtained results, it has been checked whether the superiority of the proposed GAO approach is significant from a statistical point of view or not. For this purpose, the Wilcoxon rank sum test [88] is employed, which is a non-parametric test and is used to determine the significant difference between the means of two data samples. In the Wilcoxon rank sum test, the presence or absence of a statistically significant difference is determined using an index called the p-value. The implementation results of the Wilcoxon rank sum test statistical analysis on the performance of GAO against each of the competitor algorithms are reported in Table 5. Based on the obtained results, in cases where the p-value is less than 0.05, GAO has a statistically significant superiority compared to the corresponding competitor algorithm. Statistical analysis shows that GAO has a significant statistical superiority in handling the CEC 2017 test suite for all four dimensions of the problem, equal to 10, 30, 50, and 100, in competition with all twelve compared algorithms.

5. GAO for Real-World Applications

In this section, the effectiveness of the proposed GAO approach in solving optimization problems in real-world applications is evaluated. For this purpose, twenty-two constrained optimization problems from the CEC 2011 test suite and four engineering design problems are selected.

5.1. Evaluation of the CEC 2011 Test Suite

In this subsection, the performance of GAO and competitor algorithms in handling the CEC 2011 test suite has been tested. The CEC 2011 test suite consists of twenty-two constrained optimization problems from real-world applications. A full description and more details about the CEC 2011 test suite are available at [89].
The results of employing GAO and competitor algorithms to deal with the CEC 2011 test suite are reported in Table 6. The boxplot diagrams obtained from the performance of metaheuristic algorithms in this experiment are plotted in Figure 7. The optimization results show that the proposed GAO approach, with its high ability to explore, exploit, and balance them during the search process, has been able to provide suitable solutions for optimization problems. What is concluded from the comparison of the simulation results is that GAO has provided superior performance in handling the CEC 2011 test suite against competitor algorithms by providing better results for most of the benchmark functions and obtaining the rank of the first-best optimizer overall. Also, the results obtained from the Wilcoxon rank sum test indicate the statistically significant superiority of GAO compared to all twelve competitor algorithms in order to solve the CEC 2011 test suite.

5.2. Pressure Vessel Design Problem

Pressure vessel design is a real-world engineering challenge with the aim of minimizing construction costs. The schematic of this design is shown in Figure 8, and its mathematical model is as follows [90]:
Consider:  X = [ x 1 ,   x 2 ,   x 3 ,   x 4 ] = [ T s ,   T h ,   R ,   L ] .
Minimize:  f ( x ) = 0.6224 x 1 x 3 x 4 + 1.778 x 2 x 3 2 + 3.1661 x 1 2 x 4 + 19.84 x 1 2 x 3 .
Subject to:
g 1 ( x ) = x 1 + 0.0193 x 3     0 ,     g 2 ( x ) = x 2 + 0.00954 x 3     0 ,
g 3 ( x ) = π x 3 2 x 4 4 3 π x 3 3 + 1296 , 000     0 ,     g 4 ( x ) = x 4 240     0 .
With
0 x 1 , x 2 100   and   10 x 3 , x 4 200 .
The implementation results of the GAO and competitor algorithms on the Pressure vessel design problem are reported in Table 7 and Table 8. The convergence curve of GAO while achieving the optimal solution for pressure vessel design is drawn in Figure 9. Based on the optimization results, GAO has determined the optimal design for the pressure vessel with the values of the design variables equal to (0.7780271, 0.3845792, 40.312284, and 200) and the value of the objective function equal to (5882.8955). The simulation results show that GAO has provided superior performance in dealing with the pressure vessel design problem by providing better results compared to competitor algorithms.

5.3. Speed Reducer Design Problem

Speed reducer design is a real-world engineering challenge with the aim of minimizing the weight of the speed reducer. The schematic of this design is shown in Figure 10, and its mathematical model is as follows [91,92]:
Consider:  X = [ x 1 ,   x 2 ,   x 3 ,   x 4 ,   x 5   , x 6   , x 7 ] = [ b ,   m ,   p ,   l 1 ,   l 2 ,   d 1 ,   d 2 ] .
Minimize:  f ( x ) = 0.7854 x 1 x 2 2 ( 3.3333 x 3 2 + 14.9334 x 3 43.0934 ) 1.508 x 1 ( x 6 2 + x 7 2 ) + 7.4777 ( x 6 3 + x 7 3 ) + 0.7854 ( x 4 x 6 2 + x 5 x 7 2 ) .
Subject to: 
g 1 ( x ) = 27 x 1 x 2 2 x 3 1     0 ,       g 2 ( x ) = 397.5 x 1 x 2 2 x 3 1     0 ,
g 3 ( x ) = 1.93 x 4 3 x 2 x 3 x 6 4 1     0 ,       g 4 ( x ) = 1.93 x 5 3 x 2 x 3 x 7 4 1     0 ,
g 5 ( x ) = 1 110 x 6 3 ( 745 x 4 x 2 x 3 ) 2 + 16.9 × 10 6 1     0 ,
g 6 ( x ) = 1 85 x 7 3 ( 745 x 5 x 2 x 3 ) 2 + 157.5 × 10 6 1     0 ,
g 7 ( x ) = x 2 x 3 40 1     0 ,       g 8 ( x ) = 5 x 2 x 1 1     0 ,
g 9 ( x ) = x 1 12 x 2 1     0 ,       g 10 ( x ) = 1.5 x 6 + 1.9 x 4 1     0 ,
g 11 ( x ) = 1.1 x 7 + 1.9 x 5 1     0 .
With
2.6 x 1 3.6 ,   0.7 x 2 0.8 ,   17 x 3 28 ,   7.3 x 4 8.3 ,   7.8 x 5 8.3 ,   2.9 x 6 3.9 ,   and   5 x 7 5.5 .
The results of employing GAO and competitor algorithms to solve the speed reducer design problem are reported in Table 9 and Table 10. The convergence curve of GAO towards the optimal solution for speed reducer design is drawn in Figure 11. Based on the optimization results, GAO has provided the optimal design for the speed reducer with the values of the design variables equal to (3.5, 0.7, 17, 7.3, 7.8, 3.3502147, and 5.2866832) and the value of the objective function equal to (2996.3482). Analysis of the simulation results indicates that GAO has provided superior performance by achieving better results in order to solve the problem of speed reducer design compared to competitor algorithms.

5.4. Welded Beam Design

Welded beam design is a real-world engineering challenge with the aim of minimizing the fabrication cost of the welded beam. The schematic of this design is shown in Figure 12, and its mathematical model is as follows [25]:
Consider:  X = [ x 1 ,   x 2 ,   x 3 ,   x 4 ] = [ h ,   l ,   t ,   b ] .
Minimize:  f ( x ) = 1.10471 x 1 2 x 2 + 0.04811 x 3 x 4   ( 14.0 + x 2 ) .
Subject to:
g 1 ( x ) = τ ( x ) 13 , 600     0 ,     g 2 ( x ) = σ ( x ) 30 , 000     0 ,
g 3 ( x ) = x 1 x 4     0 ,     g 4 ( x ) = 0.10471 x 1 2 + 0.04811 x 3 x 4   ( 14 + x 2 ) 5.0     0 ,
g 5 ( x ) = 0.125 x 1     0 ,     g 6 ( x ) = δ   ( x ) 0.25     0 ,
g 7 ( x ) = 6000 p c   ( x )     0 .
where
τ ( x ) = ( τ ) 2 + ( 2 τ τ ) x 2 2 R + ( τ ) 2   ,     τ = 6000 2 x 1 x 2 ,     τ = M R J ,
M = 6000 ( 14 + x 2 2 ) ,     R = x 2 2 4 + ( x 1 + x 3 2 ) 2 ,
J = 2 { x 1 x 2 2 [ x 2 2 12 + ( x 1 + x 3 2 ) 2 ] } ,       σ ( x ) = 504 , 000 x 4 x 3 2  
δ   ( x ) = 65 , 856 , 000 ( 30 · 10 6 ) x 4 x 3 3 ,     p c   ( x ) = 4.013 ( 30 · 10 6 ) x 3 2 x 4 6 36 196 ( 1 x 3 28 30 · 10 6 4 ( 12 · 10 6 ) ) .
With
0.1 x 1 ,   x 4 2       and   0.1 x 2 ,   x 3 10 .
The results of dealing with the problem of welded beam design using GAO and competitor algorithms are reported in Table 11 and Table 12. The convergence curve of GAO while achieving the optimal solution for welded beam design is drawn in Figure 13. Based on the optimization results, GAO has determined the optimal design for the welded beam with the values of the design variables equal to (0.2057296, 3.4704887, 9.0366239, and 0.2057296) and the value of the objective function equal to (1.7246798). What is evident from the simulation results is that GAO has provided superior performance by converging to better results in order to address the welded beam design problem compared to competitor algorithms.

5.5. Tension/Compression Spring Design

Tension/compression spring design is a real-world engineering challenge with the aim of minimizing the weight of the tension/compression spring. The schematic of this design is shown in Figure 14, and its mathematical model is as follows [25]:
Consider:  X = [ x 1 ,   x 2 ,   x 3   ] = [ d ,   D ,   P ] .
Minimize:  f ( x ) = ( x 3 + 2 ) x 2 x 1 2 .
Subject to:
g 1 ( x ) = 1 x 2 3 x 3 71 , 785 x 1 4     0 ,     g 2 ( x ) = 4 x 2 2 x 1 x 2 12 , 566 ( x 2 x 1 3 ) + 1 5108 x 1 2 1     0 ,
g 3 ( x ) = 1 140.45 x 1 x 2 2 x 3     0 ,     g 4 ( x ) = x 1 + x 2 1.5 1     0 .
With
0.05 x 1 2 ,   0.25 x 2 1.3         and         2   x 3 15
The implementation results of GAO and competitor algorithms on the tension/compression spring design problem are reported in Table 13 and Table 14. The convergence curve of GAO towards the optimal solution for tension/compression spring design is drawn in Figure 15. Based on the optimization results, GAO has determined the optimal design for the tension/compression spring with the values of the design variables equal to (0.0516891, 0.3567177, and 11.288966) and the value of the objective function equal to (0.0126019). The simulation results show that GAO has provided superior performance by providing better results for solving the tension/compression spring design problem compared to competitor algorithms.

6. Conclusions and Future Works

In this paper, a new bio-inspired metaheuristic algorithm called Giant Armadillo Optimization (GAO) was introduced, which imitates the behavior of giant armadilloes in nature. The fundamental inspiration for GAOs design is derived from the attack strategy of giant armadillos in moving towards prey positions and digging termite mounds. The GAO theory was stated, and its implementation steps were mathematically modeled in two phases: (i) exploration based on the simulation of the movement of giant armadillos towards termite mounds, and (ii) exploitation based on the simulation of the giant armadillo’s digging skills in order to prey on and rip open termite mounds. The efficiency of GAO was evaluated in handling the CEC 2017 test suite for problem dimensions equal to 10, 30, 50, and 100. The optimization results showed that GAO has a high ability for exploration, exploitation, and balancing them during the search process. The results obtained from GAO were compared with the performance of twelve well-known metaheuristic algorithms. The simulation results showed that GAO has provided superior performance by achieving better results for most of the benchmark functions in competition with competitor algorithms. Using the statistical analysis of the Wilcoxon rank sum test, it was confirmed that GAO has a significant statistical superiority over competitor algorithms. Implementation of GAO on the CEC 2011 test suite and four engineering design problems showed that the proposed approach has an effective ability to handle optimization tasks in real-world applications.
Introducing the proposed GAO approach raises several research tasks for further work.
  • Binary GAO. The real version of GAO is introduced and fully designed in this paper. However, many optimization problems in science, such as feature selection, should be optimized using binary versions of metaheuristic algorithms. According to this, designing the binary version of the proposed GAO approach (BGAO) is one of the special potentials of this study.
  • Multi-objective GAO. From the point of view of the number of objective functions, optimization problems are divided into single-objective and multi-objective categories. In many optimization problems, several objective functions must be considered simultaneously in order to achieve a suitable solution. Therefore, developing the multi-objective version of the proposed GAO approach (MOGAO) in order to handle multi-objective optimization problems is another research potential of this paper.
  • Hybrid GAO. Combining two or more metaheuristic algorithms in order to benefit from the advantages of each algorithm and create an effective hybrid approach has always been of interest to researchers. Considering this, developing hybrid versions of the proposed GAO approach is another research proposal for future work.
  • Tackle new domains. GAO employment to address real-world applications and optimization problems in various sciences such as renewable energy, chemical engineering, robotics, and image processing are among other research proposals for further work.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.D., O.A. and H.A.-T.; methodology, M.D., T.H. and M.A.; software, S.G., I.L., O.A., H.A.-T. and O.P.M.; validation, S.G., I.L., O.P.M. and M.D.; formal analysis, M.D., O.P.M., T.H. and H.A.-T.; investigation, O.P.M., T.H. and M.A.; resources, O.A. and H.A.-T.; data curation, T.H. and M.A.; writing—original draft preparation, S.G., I.L. and H.A.-T.; writing—review and editing, O.P.M., M.D., O.A., T.H. and M.A.; visualization, T.H., M.A., S.G. and I.L.; supervision, M.D.; project administration, O.A., O.P.M., M.A. and T.H.; funding acquisition, O.P.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

“Professor O.P. Malik” has paid APC from his NSERC, Canada, research grant.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

Financial support of NSERC Canada through a research grant is acknowledged.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Control parameters values of competitor metaheuristic algorithms.
Table A1. Control parameters values of competitor metaheuristic algorithms.
AlgorithmParameterValue
GA
TypeReal coded
SelectionRoulette wheel (Proportionate)
CrossoverWhole arithmetic (Probability = 0.8,
α ∈ [−0.5, 1.5]
MutationGaussian (Probability = 0.05)
PSO
TopologyFully connected
Cognitive and social constant(C1, C2) = (2, 2)
Inertia weightLinear reduction from 0.9 to 0.1
Velocity limit10% of dimension range
GSA
Alpha, G0, Rnorm, Rpower20, 100, 2, 1
TLBO
TF: teaching factorTF = round [(1 + rand)]
random numberrand is a random number between [0–1]
GWO
Convergence parameter (a)a: Linear reduction from 2 to 0.
MVO
wormhole existence probability (WEP)Min(WEP) = 0.2 and Max(WEP) = 1.
Exploitation accuracy over the iterations (p)p = 6.
WOA
Convergence parameter (a)a: Linear reduction from 2 to 0.
r is a random vector in [0–1]
l is a random number in [−1, 1]
TSA
Pmin and Pmax1, 4
c1, c2, c3 random numbers lie in the range of [0–1]
MPA
Constant numberP = 0.5
Random vectorR is a vector of uniform random numbers in [0, 1]
Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs)FADs = 0.2
Binary vectorU = 0 or 1
RSA
Sensitive parameterβ = 0.01
Sensitive parameterα = 0.1
Evolutionary Sense (ES)ES: randomly decreasing values between 2 and −2
AVOA
L1, L20.8, 0.2
w2.5
P1, P2, P30.6, 0.4, 0.6
WSO
Fmin and Fmax0.07, 0.75
τ, ao, a1, a24.125, 6.25, 100, 0.0005

References

  1. Zhao, S.; Zhang, T.; Ma, S.; Chen, M. Dandelion Optimizer: A nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithm for engineering applications. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2022, 114, 105075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sergeyev, Y.D.; Kvasov, D.; Mukhametzhanov, M. On the efficiency of nature-inspired metaheuristics in expensive global optimization with limited budget. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Liberti, L.; Kucherenko, S. Comparison of deterministic and stochastic approaches to global optimization. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 2005, 12, 263–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Alshanti, W.G.; Batiha, I.M.; Hammad, M.M.A.; Khalil, R. A novel analytical approach for solving partial differential equations via a tensor product theory of Banach spaces. Partial Differ. Equ. Appl. Math. 2023, 8, 100531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dehghani, M.; Trojovská, E.; Trojovský, P. A new human-based metaheuristic algorithm for solving optimization problems on the base of simulation of driving training process. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 9924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Zeidabadi, F.-A.; Dehghani, M.; Trojovský, P.; Hubálovský, Š.; Leiva, V.; Dhiman, G. Archery Algorithm: A Novel Stochastic Optimization Algorithm for Solving Optimization Problems. Comput. Mater. Contin. 2022, 72, 399–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. de Armas, J.; Lalla-Ruiz, E.; Tilahun, S.L.; Voß, S. Similarity in metaheuristics: A gentle step towards a comparison methodology. Nat. Comput. 2022, 21, 265–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dehghani, M.; Montazeri, Z.; Dehghani, A.; Malik, O.P.; Morales-Menendez, R.; Dhiman, G.; Nouri, N.; Ehsanifar, A.; Guerrero, J.M.; Ramirez-Mendoza, R.A. Binary spring search algorithm for solving various optimization problems. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jakšić, Z.; Devi, S.; Jakšić, O.; Guha, K. A Comprehensive Review of Bio-Inspired Optimization Algorithms Including Applications in Microelectronics and Nanophotonics. Biomimetics 2023, 8, 278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gölcük, İ.; Ozsoydan, F.B. Q-learning and hyper-heuristic based algorithm recommendation for changing environments. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2021, 102, 104284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Huang, Z.; Zhang, H.; Wang, D.; Yu, H.; Wang, L.; Yu, D.; Peng, Y. Preference-based multi-attribute decision-making method with spherical-Z fuzzy sets for green product design. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2023, 126, 106767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gharehchopogh, F.S.; Maleki, I.; Dizaji, Z.A. Chaotic vortex search algorithm: Metaheuristic algorithm for feature selection. Evol. Intell. 2022, 15, 1777–1808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zhang, H.; Huang, Z.; Tian, G.; Wang, W.; Li, Z. A Hybrid QFD-Based Human-Centric Decision Making Approach of Disassembly Schemes Under Interval 2-Tuple q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy Sets. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 2023, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dinkar, S.K.; Deep, K.; Mirjalili, S.; Thapliyal, S. Opposition-based Laplacian Equilibrium Optimizer with application in Image Segmentation using Multilevel Thresholding. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 174, 114766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mohar, S.S.; Goyal, S.; Kaur, R. Localization of sensor nodes in wireless sensor networks using bat optimization algorithm with enhanced exploration and exploitation characteristics. J. Supercomput. 2022, 78, 11975–12023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Trojovská, E.; Dehghani, M.; Trojovský, P. Zebra Optimization Algorithm: A New Bio-Inspired Optimization Algorithm for Solving Optimization Algorithm. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 49445–49473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wolpert, D.H.; Macready, W.G. No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 1997, 1, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kennedy, J.; Eberhart, R. Particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of the ICNN’95—International Conference on Neural Networks, Perth, WA, Australia, 27 November–1 December 1995; IEEE: Perth, WA, Australia, 1995; Volume 4, pp. 1942–1948. [Google Scholar]
  19. Dorigo, M.; Maniezzo, V.; Colorni, A. Ant system: Optimization by a colony of cooperating agents. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B (Cybern.) 1996, 26, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Karaboga, D.; Basturk, B. Artificial bee colony (ABC) optimization algorithm for solving constrained optimization problems. In Proceedings of the International Fuzzy Systems Association World Congress, Cancun, Mexico, 18–21 June 2007; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 789–798. [Google Scholar]
  21. Yang, X.-S. Firefly algorithm, stochastic test functions and design optimisation. Int. J. Bio-Inspired Comput. 2010, 2, 78–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mirjalili, S.; Mirjalili, S.M.; Lewis, A. Grey Wolf Optimizer. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2014, 69, 46–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dehghani, M.; Trojovský, P.; Malik, O.P. Green Anaconda Optimization: A New Bio-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithm for Solving Optimization Problems. Biomimetics 2023, 8, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hashim, F.A.; Houssein, E.H.; Hussain, K.; Mabrouk, M.S.; Al-Atabany, W. Honey Badger Algorithm: New metaheuristic algorithm for solving optimization problems. Math. Comput. Simul. 2022, 192, 84–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mirjalili, S.; Lewis, A. The whale optimization algorithm. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2016, 95, 51–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jiang, Y.; Wu, Q.; Zhu, S.; Zhang, L. Orca predation algorithm: A novel bio-inspired algorithm for global optimization problems. Expert Syst. Appl. 2022, 188, 116026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Abualigah, L.; Abd Elaziz, M.; Sumari, P.; Geem, Z.W.; Gandomi, A.H. Reptile Search Algorithm (RSA): A nature-inspired meta-heuristic optimizer. Expert Syst. Appl. 2022, 191, 116158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dehghani, M.; Montazeri, Z.; Bektemyssova, G.; Malik, O.P.; Dhiman, G.; Ahmed, A.E. Kookaburra Optimization Algorithm: A New Bio-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithm for Solving Optimization Problems. Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Abdel-Basset, M.; Mohamed, R.; Zidan, M.; Jameel, M.; Abouhawwash, M. Mantis Search Algorithm: A novel bio-inspired algorithm for global optimization and engineering design problems. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2023, 415, 116200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Houssein, E.H.; Oliva, D.; Samee, N.A.; Mahmoud, N.F.; Emam, M.M. Liver Cancer Algorithm: A novel bio-inspired optimizer. Comput. Biol. Med. 2023, 165, 107389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Faramarzi, A.; Heidarinejad, M.; Mirjalili, S.; Gandomi, A.H. Marine Predators Algorithm: A nature-inspired metaheuristic. Expert Syst. Appl. 2020, 152, 113377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kaur, S.; Awasthi, L.K.; Sangal, A.L.; Dhiman, G. Tunicate Swarm Algorithm: A new bio-inspired based metaheuristic paradigm for global optimization. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2020, 90, 103541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Braik, M.; Hammouri, A.; Atwan, J.; Al-Betar, M.A.; Awadallah, M.A. White Shark Optimizer: A novel bio-inspired meta-heuristic algorithm for global optimization problems. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2022, 243, 108457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chopra, N.; Ansari, M.M. Golden Jackal Optimization: A Novel Nature-Inspired Optimizer for Engineering Applications. Expert Syst. Appl. 2022, 198, 116924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Goldberg, D.E.; Holland, J.H. Genetic Algorithms and Machine Learning. Mach. Learn. 1988, 3, 95–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Storn, R.; Price, K. Differential evolution—A simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J. Glob. Optim. 1997, 11, 341–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. De Castro, L.N.; Timmis, J.I. Artificial immune systems as a novel soft computing paradigm. Soft Comput. 2003, 7, 526–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Koza, J.R. Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1992; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  39. Reynolds, R.G. An introduction to cultural algorithms. In Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference on Evolutionary Programming, San Diego, CA, USA, 24–26 February 1994; World Scientific: Singapore, 1994; pp. 131–139. [Google Scholar]
  40. Beyer, H.-G.; Schwefel, H.-P. Evolution strategies—A comprehensive introduction. Nat. Comput. 2002, 1, 3–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dehghani, M.; Samet, H. Momentum search algorithm: A new meta-heuristic optimization algorithm inspired by momentum conservation law. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 1720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rashedi, E.; Nezamabadi-Pour, H.; Saryazdi, S. GSA: A gravitational search algorithm. Inf. Sci. 2009, 179, 2232–2248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dehghani, M.; Montazeri, Z.; Dhiman, G.; Malik, O.; Morales-Menendez, R.; Ramirez-Mendoza, R.A.; Dehghani, A.; Guerrero, J.M.; Parra-Arroyo, L. A spring search algorithm applied to engineering optimization problems. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mirjalili, S.; Mirjalili, S.M.; Hatamlou, A. Multi-verse optimizer: A nature-inspired algorithm for global optimization. Neural Comput. Appl. 2016, 27, 495–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hatamlou, A. Black hole: A new heuristic optimization approach for data clustering. Inf. Sci. 2013, 222, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hashim, F.A.; Hussain, K.; Houssein, E.H.; Mabrouk, M.S.; Al-Atabany, W. Archimedes optimization algorithm: A new metaheuristic algorithm for solving optimization problems. Appl. Intell. 2021, 51, 1531–1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Eskandar, H.; Sadollah, A.; Bahreininejad, A.; Hamdi, M. Water cycle algorithm—A novel metaheuristic optimization method for solving constrained engineering optimization problems. Comput. Struct. 2012, 110, 151–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Irizarry, R. LARES: An artificial chemical process approach for optimization. Evol. Comput. 2004, 12, 435–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Salmani, M.H.; Eshghi, K. A metaheuristic algorithm based on chemotherapy science: CSA. J. Optim. 2017, 2017, 3082024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wei, Z.; Huang, C.; Wang, X.; Han, T.; Li, Y. Nuclear reaction optimization: A novel and powerful physics-based algorithm for global optimization. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 66084–66109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hashim, F.A.; Houssein, E.H.; Mabrouk, M.S.; Al-Atabany, W.; Mirjalili, S. Henry gas solubility optimization: A novel physics-based algorithm. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2019, 101, 646–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cuevas, E.; Oliva, D.; Zaldivar, D.; Pérez-Cisneros, M.; Sossa, H. Circle detection using electro-magnetism optimization. Inf. Sci. 2012, 182, 40–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Pereira, J.L.J.; Francisco, M.B.; Diniz, C.A.; Oliver, G.A.; Cunha, S.S., Jr.; Gomes, G.F. Lichtenberg algorithm: A novel hybrid physics-based meta-heuristic for global optimization. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 170, 114522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kaveh, A.; Dadras, A. A novel meta-heuristic optimization algorithm: Thermal exchange optimization. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2017, 110, 69–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Faramarzi, A.; Heidarinejad, M.; Stephens, B.; Mirjalili, S. Equilibrium optimizer: A novel optimization algorithm. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2020, 191, 105190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rao, R.V.; Savsani, V.J.; Vakharia, D. Teaching–learning-based optimization: A novel method for constrained mechanical design optimization problems. Comput.-Aided Des. 2011, 43, 303–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Matoušová, I.; Trojovský, P.; Dehghani, M.; Trojovská, E.; Kostra, J. Mother optimization algorithm: A new human-based metaheuristic approach for solving engineering optimization. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 10312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Dehghani, M.; Mardaneh, M.; Guerrero, J.M.; Malik, O.P.; Ramirez-Mendoza, R.A.; Matas, J.; Vasquez, J.C.; Parra-Arroyo, L. A new “Doctor and Patient” optimization algorithm: An application to energy commitment problem. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Dehghani, M.; Trojovská, E.; Zuščák, T. A new human-inspired metaheuristic algorithm for solving optimization problems based on mimicking sewing training. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 17387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Braik, M.; Ryalat, M.H.; Al-Zoubi, H. A novel meta-heuristic algorithm for solving numerical optimization problems: Ali Baba and the forty thieves. Neural Comput. Appl. 2022, 34, 409–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Trojovský, P.; Dehghani, M. A new optimization algorithm based on mimicking the voting process for leader selection. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 2022, 8, e976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Al-Betar, M.A.; Alyasseri, Z.A.A.; Awadallah, M.A.; Abu Doush, I. Coronavirus herd immunity optimizer (CHIO). Neural Comput. Appl. 2021, 33, 5011–5042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zhang, Y.; Jin, Z. Group teaching optimization algorithm: A novel metaheuristic method for solving global optimization problems. Expert Syst. Appl. 2020, 148, 113246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Oyelade, O.N.; Ezugwu, A.E.-S.; Mohamed, T.I.; Abualigah, L. Ebola optimization search algorithm: A new nature-inspired metaheuristic optimization algorithm. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 16150–16177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mohamed, A.W.; Hadi, A.A.; Mohamed, A.K. Gaining-sharing knowledge based algorithm for solving optimization problems: A novel nature-inspired algorithm. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern. 2020, 11, 1501–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ayyarao, T.L.; RamaKrishna, N.; Elavarasam, R.M.; Polumahanthi, N.; Rambabu, M.; Saini, G.; Khan, B.; Alatas, B. War Strategy Optimization Algorithm: A New Effective Metaheuristic Algorithm for Global Optimization. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 25073–25105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Dehghani, M.; Montazeri, Z.; Givi, H.; Guerrero, J.M.; Dhiman, G. Darts game optimizer: A new optimization technique based on darts game. Int. J. Intell. Eng. Syst. 2020, 13, 286–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Dehghani, M.; Montazeri, Z.; Saremi, S.; Dehghani, A.; Malik, O.P.; Al-Haddad, K.; Guerrero, J.M. HOGO: Hide objects game optimization. Int. J. Intell. Eng. Syst. 2020, 13, 216–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Dehghani, M.; Montazeri, Z.; Malik, O.P.; Ehsanifar, A.; Dehghani, A. OSA: Orientation search algorithm. Int. J. Ind. Electron. Control Optim. 2019, 2, 99–112. [Google Scholar]
  70. Doumari, S.A.; Givi, H.; Dehghani, M.; Malik, O.P. Ring Toss Game-Based Optimization Algorithm for Solving Various Optimization Problems. Int. J. Intell. Eng. Syst. 2021, 14, 545–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Dehghani, M.; Mardaneh, M.; Guerrero, J.M.; Malik, O.; Kumar, V. Football game based optimization: An application to solve energy commitment problem. Int. J. Intell. Eng. Syst. 2020, 13, 514–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Montazeri, Z.; Niknam, T.; Aghaei, J.; Malik, O.P.; Dehghani, M.; Dhiman, G. Golf Optimization Algorithm: A New Game-Based Metaheuristic Algorithm and Its Application to Energy Commitment Problem Considering Resilience. Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Moghdani, R.; Salimifard, K. Volleyball premier league algorithm. Appl. Soft Comput. 2018, 64, 161–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wang, G.-G.; Deb, S.; Cui, Z. Monarch butterfly optimization. Neural Comput. Appl. 2019, 31, 1995–2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Li, S.; Chen, H.; Wang, M.; Heidari, A.A.; Mirjalili, S. Slime mould algorithm: A new method for stochastic optimization. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2020, 111, 300–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wang, G.-G. Moth search algorithm: A bio-inspired metaheuristic algorithm for global optimization problems. Memetic Comput. 2018, 10, 151–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Yang, Y.; Chen, H.; Heidari, A.A.; Gandomi, A.H. Hunger games search: Visions, conception, implementation, deep analysis, perspectives, and towards performance shifts. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 177, 114864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ahmadianfar, I.; Heidari, A.A.; Gandomi, A.H.; Chu, X.; Chen, H. RUN beyond the metaphor: An efficient optimization algorithm based on Runge Kutta method. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 181, 115079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Tu, J.; Chen, H.; Wang, M.; Gandomi, A.H. The Colony Predation Algorithm. J. Bionic Eng. 2021, 18, 674–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ahmadianfar, I.; Heidari, A.A.; Noshadian, S.; Chen, H.; Gandomi, A.H. INFO: An efficient optimization algorithm based on weighted mean of vectors. Expert Syst. Appl. 2022, 195, 116516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Heidari, A.A.; Mirjalili, S.; Faris, H.; Aljarah, I.; Mafarja, M.; Chen, H. Harris hawks optimization: Algorithm and applications. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2019, 97, 849–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Su, H.; Zhao, D.; Heidari, A.A.; Liu, L.; Zhang, X.; Mafarja, M.; Chen, H. RIME: A physics-based optimization. Neurocomputing 2023, 532, 183–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Wilson, D.E.; Reeder, D.M. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference; JHU Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2005; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  84. Emerson, D. Animal: The Definitive Visual Guide to the World’s Wildlife; Bowker Magazine Group Cahners Magazine Division: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  85. Carter, T.S.; Superina, M.; Leslie, D.M. Priodontes maximus (Cingulata: Chlamyphoridae). Mamm. Species 2016, 48, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Abdollahzadeh, B.; Gharehchopogh, F.S.; Mirjalili, S. African vultures optimization algorithm: A new nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithm for global optimization problems. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2021, 158, 107408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Awad, N.; Ali, M.; Liang, J.; Qu, B.; Suganthan, P.; Definitions, P. Evaluation Criteria for the CEC 2017 Special Session and Competition on Single Objective Real-Parameter Numerical Optimization; Technology Report; Nanyang Technological University: Singapore, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  88. Wilcoxon, F. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. In Breakthroughs in Statistics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1992; pp. 196–202. [Google Scholar]
  89. Das, S.; Suganthan, P.N. Problem Definitions and Evaluation Criteria for CEC 2011 Competition on Testing Evolutionary Algorithms on Real World Optimization Problems; Jadavpur University: Kolkata, India; Nanyang Technological University: Singapore, 2010; pp. 341–359. [Google Scholar]
  90. Kannan, B.; Kramer, S.N. An augmented Lagrange multiplier based method for mixed integer discrete continuous optimization and its applications to mechanical design. J. Mech. Des. 1994, 116, 405–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Gandomi, A.H.; Yang, X.-S. Benchmark problems in structural optimization. In Computational Optimization, Methods and Algorithms; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 259–281. [Google Scholar]
  92. Mezura-Montes, E.; Coello, C.A.C. Useful infeasible solutions in engineering optimization with evolutionary algorithms. In Proceedings of the Mexican International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Monterrey, Mexico, 14–18 November 2005; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; pp. 652–662. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Giant armadillo taken from: free media Wikimedia Commons.
Figure 1. Giant armadillo taken from: free media Wikimedia Commons.
Biomimetics 08 00619 g001
Figure 2. Flowchart of GAO.
Figure 2. Flowchart of GAO.
Biomimetics 08 00619 g002
Figure 3. Boxplot diagrams of GAO and competitor algorithms’ performances on the CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 10).
Figure 3. Boxplot diagrams of GAO and competitor algorithms’ performances on the CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 10).
Biomimetics 08 00619 g003aBiomimetics 08 00619 g003b
Figure 4. Boxplot diagrams of GAO and competitor algorithms’ performances on the CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 30).
Figure 4. Boxplot diagrams of GAO and competitor algorithms’ performances on the CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 30).
Biomimetics 08 00619 g004aBiomimetics 08 00619 g004b
Figure 5. Boxplot diagrams of GAO and competitor algorithms’ performances on the CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 50).
Figure 5. Boxplot diagrams of GAO and competitor algorithms’ performances on the CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 50).
Biomimetics 08 00619 g005aBiomimetics 08 00619 g005b
Figure 6. Boxplot diagrams of GAO and competitor algorithms’ performances on the CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 100).
Figure 6. Boxplot diagrams of GAO and competitor algorithms’ performances on the CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 100).
Biomimetics 08 00619 g006aBiomimetics 08 00619 g006b
Figure 7. Boxplot diagrams of GAO and competitor algorithms’ performances on the CEC 2011 test suite.
Figure 7. Boxplot diagrams of GAO and competitor algorithms’ performances on the CEC 2011 test suite.
Biomimetics 08 00619 g007aBiomimetics 08 00619 g007b
Figure 8. Schematic of pressure vessel design.
Figure 8. Schematic of pressure vessel design.
Biomimetics 08 00619 g008
Figure 9. GAOs performance convergence curve on pressure vessel design.
Figure 9. GAOs performance convergence curve on pressure vessel design.
Biomimetics 08 00619 g009
Figure 10. Schematic of speed reducer design.
Figure 10. Schematic of speed reducer design.
Biomimetics 08 00619 g010
Figure 11. GAOs performance convergence curve on speed reducer design.
Figure 11. GAOs performance convergence curve on speed reducer design.
Biomimetics 08 00619 g011
Figure 12. Schematic of welded beam design.
Figure 12. Schematic of welded beam design.
Biomimetics 08 00619 g012
Figure 13. GAOs performance convergence curve on welded beam design.
Figure 13. GAOs performance convergence curve on welded beam design.
Biomimetics 08 00619 g013
Figure 14. Schematic of tension/compression spring design.
Figure 14. Schematic of tension/compression spring design.
Biomimetics 08 00619 g014
Figure 15. GAOs performance convergence curve on tension/compression spring.
Figure 15. GAOs performance convergence curve on tension/compression spring.
Biomimetics 08 00619 g015
Table 1. Optimization results of the CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 10).
Table 1. Optimization results of the CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 10).
GAOWSOAVOARSAMPATSAWOAMVOGWOTLBOGSAPSOGA
C17-F1mean1004.67E+094,184,9798.73E+0934,330,7391.49E+099,692,8324,188,12179,553,5261.3E+084,182,3334,184,38214,308,636
best1003.93E+093746.7437.56E+0910,903.053.19E+084,981,8688834.83725,081.3456,192,5601415.8941625.7866,732,111
worst1005.85E+0915,192,9291.04E+101.25E+083.24E+0919,205,39815,201,9562.89E+083.03E+0815,192,87315,193,48426,519,809
std09.08E+088,022,3801.4E+0965,875,2451.41E+097,002,7248,026,1441.53E+081.27E+088,023,8828,022,6679,534,136
median1004.44E+09771,6208.48E+096,292,6151.2E+097,292,030770,846.814,580,52680,111,109767,520.9771,208.311,991,311
rank11241381165910237
C17-F3mean3006653.076432.84318416.7041377.3319744.621652.665431.27212796.49795.36268937.772431.225512,795.02
best3003819.149358.21244752.444777.913952.712640.1711358.22321407.456504.48815625.365358.21234024.146
worst3008784.409568.264511,138.082473.98413,631.642947.044564.91075337.7541012.64612,088.54564.804520,125.74
std02369.321104.77583175.356851.62384471.7141195.34103.77821973.46249.90222890.252103.73299176.458
median3007004.373402.44788888.1451128.71510,697.061511.722400.97732220.375832.15859018.593400.942613,515.1
rank19410612738511213
C17-F4mean400843.9185404.85981213.807406.5485551.6274422.2989403.6485410.833408.6382404.6903418.1641413.3818
best400633.9161401.4788781.7224402.3817466.9688406.857401.7805405.4965408.3648403.4626400.3805411.3341
worst4001034.209406.71341637.197411.0784649.5213463.1789405.3186425.5967409.1148406.3282461.3011416.8981
std0195.12142.525052397.33244.66863497.4074729.756531.65847310.722210.3571771.56199131.591442.777032
median400853.7743405.62361218.153406.3669545.0096409.5799403.7475406.1195408.5367404.4852405.4875412.6476
rank11241351110276398
C17-F5mean501.2464554.7301539.6017564.4364512.703557.1398536.9462522.0381512.825530.977548.0728525.6662525.7627
best500.9951541.5438525.3512551.2702508.2545539.3227521.9911510.8276508.4225525.7325543.4038510.6874522.1256
worst501.9917562.7056556.257577.8185517.7245584.2697567.3886533.8411519.724534.6331557.7146546.6921531.3457
std0.54077610.5380617.7432216.111715.42390721.9044323.2318210.38025.3143834.2818777.15226418.180174.645014
median500.9993557.3354538.3993564.3285512.4164552.4834529.2026521.7418511.5768531.7711545.5865522.6426524.7898
rank11191321284371056
C17-F6mean600628.1172615.1576635.431601.1785621.6683620.2268602.0072601.1205606.0926615.0587606.5844609.0379
best600624.1437614.3677632.6039600.7017613.1533606.6099600.5106600.6181604.2107602.6271601.2733606.0714
worst600632.1329617.3273639.0601602.3672635.1389639.2844604.0274601.5891609.0813631.4329616.984612.8624
std03.7437691.5753873.1810930.86475910.2937514.952421.7177290.4588092.41252114.533077.764623.27032
median600628.0961614.4676635.0299600.8225619.1905617.5064601.7454601.1374605.5392613.0873604.0401608.609
rank11291331110425867
C17-F7mean711.1267786.7696759.9427793.5837724.4666814.493756.9305729.8769725.6592748.2351717.9475731.4933735.0744
best710.6726772.6067741.6925782.6387720.3138780.2592746.903717.8787717.7416744.8348715.8297725.1484725.9664
worst711.7995796.765783.5109804.6758728.8251850.564782.3197747.11741.377755.3906721.2986741.6302739.1596
std0.55738411.0516121.0938811.224713.8996533.2178518.5103613.4115511.731445.3101272.6414728.0152116.79059
median711.0174788.8534757.2838793.5102724.3638813.5744749.2497727.2596721.7591746.3575717.331729.5974737.5857
rank11110123139548267
C17-F8mean801.4928842.6739828.5432848.1225812.5351843.4306833.0884811.8088815.2945834.2569818.779821.2983816.1124
best800.995838.1575818.6788838.3745808.7549829.3668817.8831808.206810.2093828.4819812.1894815.3777812.8734
worst801.9912847.7998842.4782852.205814.6617859.7064843.6564815.4968819.8403840.725825.0554827.1608822.4095
std0.6256365.54556810.879677.1380782.96209914.7025612.091173.2477394.4069277.0212966.0256756.4515294.653363
median801.4926842.3692826.5079850.9554813.3619842.3245835.4072811.7662815.5642833.9103818.9357821.3274814.5833
rank11181331292410675
C17-F9mean9001353.71150.5171392.659905.1341317.561312.862901.3205910.9771910.8839900.6254904.305905.059
best9001221.615946.63951309.138900.32351133.131051.687900.1139900.5366907.8785900.0394900.8912903.0891
worst9001475.0451561.8021512.884913.17851566.9881556.076903.3636930.3434917.5471901.6052910.8806907.9139
std0119.594310.19394.40516.297156204.4421230.96941.65984215.18374.8938630.7670324.8719492.216612
median9001359.071046.8131374.307903.5171285.0611321.842900.9022906.5142909.0551900.4284902.7241904.6165
rank11291361110387245
C17-F10mean1006.1792181.0961729.5862417.5191505.2291948.5921942.0611732.1361684.5582068.3762159.5341874.0181676.188
best1000.2841921.9871462.0462268.3811382.7561720.9111445.2081441.4561509.5631717.811916.9821528.0991415.382
worst1012.6682300.1172273.8352734.9511578.5492151.8242401.4292171.4911922.5652324.8222258.832231.7342024.674
std7.244311192.7589408.7834235.1122100.3704255.5173495.8664379.7598188.8268281.6863176.5855314.8046282.3401
median1005.8822251.1411591.2312333.3721529.8061960.8161960.8041657.7991653.0512115.4352231.1621868.121632.348
rank11251329864101173
C17-F11mean11003101.991144.843578.1481126.4274844.1621146.9451126.8231150.6481146.9061136.851140.572203.963
best11002031.6761121.6261410.3441112.8984715.4351118.1171107.3821120.1251135.0861123.8531129.3611119.906
worst11004144.4341188.9135717.171157.4364912.3021165.3531143.5431217.1541163.6181160.5641162.7925289.488
std01033.31533.046642107.65222.8881795.8087123.5863218.6438849.260713.1705917.7138116.446022239.144
median11003115.9251134.413592.5391117.6874874.4551152.1561128.1821132.6561144.461131.4921135.0641203.23
rank11161221383974510
C17-F12mean1352.9593.04E+081,014,6916.07E+0855,6081.8962,283.62,093,142953,191.81,285,4894,414,980945,683.374,718.57588,303.7
best1318.64668,431,780396,241.91.35E+0819,486.36466,272.3220,440.980,269.9641,489.411,236,043498,216.711,672.08240,713.7
worst1438.1765.31E+081,719,6491.06E+09870,2371,186,6113,466,0692,783,6582,012,1327,801,9211,487,109118,000.4991,573.3
std62.358012.55E+08689,369.25.1E+08407,890368,442.31,616,4521,348,855945,244.53,753,489457,63049,610.7344,419.3
median1327.5063.09E+08971,435.46.16E+08667,3021098,1252,343,029474,419.41,544,1684,310,979898,703.884,600.92560,463.9
rank11281337106911524
C17-F13mean1305.32414,793,37016,446.4929,577,7695350.29111,633.327195.2226463.6049535.3915,064.649339.476371.28847,520.14
best1303.1141,233,7313162.2832,456,0383671.5637329.3243624.2012012.0636068.85614,058.194950.7772866.2498151.738
worst1308.50849,102,05527,494.3398,191,2006537.32717,832.2213,645.1611,451.6913,197.3417,150.113,023.4515,181.4215,5719
std2.47346224,946,02413,820.3949,889,3891487.514917.9914963.1445371.093183.3271533.3413671.926442.86278,543.6
median1304.8374,418,84717,564.688,831,9205596.13710,685.865755.7626195.3329437.68314,525.139691.8293718.74213,104.94
rank11210132854796311
C17-F14mean1400.7463537.1652000.1214863.8751929.7413175.5261567.0731612.612279.6721628.9185052.1262838.87111,422.2
best14002917.0261698.1684293.5951434.3611481.8851482.6851426.0541466.6421506.1824199.6841432.23408.166
worst1400.9954533.2162636.1566138.9362874.5215007.2891705.9522090.8774648.741770.0886879.616156.92922,446.14
std0.541408769.4616466.7728942.5869735.11152005.623104.9446348.65181719.029120.56461372.4542439.6048753.404
median1400.9953349.2081833.0794511.4851705.0423106.4661539.8281466.7541501.6531619.7024564.6051883.1779917.238
rank11061159237412813
C17-F15mean1500.3319291.2055066.76612,452.893928.0496534.7615859.3521831.7985511.3791975.93521,070.598252.5474422.54
best1500.0013298.8512198.9062860.3593190.0092503.3612217.571728.1823488.7561843.48610,151.052955.7412241.563
worst1500.515,478.2111,357.3426,628.874826.52411,218.8212,194.461938.9786425.0352050.73731,372.9513,354.667407.664
std0.2562135737.6384611.44911,314.8738.8474057.6454744.9594.034011499.643101.841210,985.24717.1152809.182
median1500.4139193.8793355.40710,161.173847.8316208.4324512.6891830.0166065.8632004.75821,379.178349.8954020.466
rank11161249827313105
C17-F16mean1600.761956.9271790.5311968.6431682.6031995.2311911.8661796.2761720.7191676.292017.5071888.7541784.315
best1600.3561899.1281650.1141802.5931640.9571830.9581751.8971713.9561618.6361655.6861903.8891801.2821715.952
worst1601.122058.3751885.9182204.091712.6082153.8052017.2061853.0431807.8661726.6832188.9332028.0711812.82
std0.34380777.00688108.6182184.776133.54393159.3833139.081764.036184.901237.02768140.3106112.938549.86364
median1600.7811935.1031813.0471933.9451688.4231998.081939.181809.0541728.1881661.3961988.6041862.8311804.244
rank11061131297421385
C17-F17mean1700.0991809.531748.1891806.2391735.0591792.3011826.5011827.261763.3061754.5681830.6991749.3821752.501
best1700.021793.1741732.491796.3511721.4951777.7981766.0751770.481723.9241744.1821743.9161742.2351748.199
worst1700.3321819.0411784.4581812.5311773.4861800.0781872.0551924.7081856.7681765.2631944.21755.8381758.536
std0.16886412.3348326.489967.63294827.8940710.7760349.3860379.3068468.1129211.30402110.12936.9202414.861874
median1700.0221812.9531737.9051808.0381722.6281795.6651833.9381806.9271736.2661754.4141817.341749.7281751.634
rank11039281112761345
C17-F18mean1805.362,456,56211,541.034,895,61110,847.9911,714.9821,376.3319,348.6318,454.4326,699.359699.42420,146.8512,363.66
best1800.003128,322.85943.256244,067.44107.4618195.0696640.0728574.8725967.32921,142.436592.1584256.3424733.467
worst1820.4517,116,65715,404.7414,209,75416,196.9614,526.1231,980.6530,964.5230,634.1332,797.9511,966.2436,094.2617,883.82
std10.951973,522,7424423.8467,042,4995983.72856.44513,538.9611,110.6813,611.525737.7332540.63718,444.416095.706
median1800.4921,290,63312,408.072,564,31211,543.7712,069.3623,442.2918,927.5618,608.1426,428.5110,119.6520,118.413,418.68
rank11241335108711296
C17-F19mean1900.445333,554.76471.06605,3365517.557108,52530,605.592353.3245333.2834743.01235,431.2522,136.666019.454
best1900.03922,357.552187.57639,716.992308.7412080.2836943.3151957.9542082.1112211.71410,526.972618.2552890.56
worst1901.559701,682.712,365.651,299,1749251.813216,523.755,721.22809.08412,850.8311,045.8250,727.4367,203.929652.432
std0.810364323,164.35110.522618,250.13851.325133,408.821,755.74467.52565493.9584585.20619,767.5933,107.073050.353
median1900.09305,089.25665.506541,226.65254.838107,747.929,878.932323.1293200.0982857.25840,235.299362.2355767.412
rank11271351192431086
C17-F20mean2000.3122195.652157.5062202.5712090.3072189.1322188.4592130.8782156.9522072.8512228.9192156.1482054.136
best2000.3122151.122041.5522151.9092071.1622101.7692099.12050.912121.1212061.0482171.8822135.0122041.352
worst2000.3122250.8692261.6322253.8112120.1472284.3132255.9492221.2072225.9442081.3882312.5232181.172059.917
std044.83411108.123853.5407622.8434183.6195182.4167275.9645451.2591610.052674.584323.999819.348874
median2000.3122190.3052163.422202.2822084.9592185.2242199.3932125.6982140.3712074.4852215.6362154.2052057.638
rank11181241095731362
C17-F21mean22002285.5152218.6872264.5162255.9842314.4112301.2492252.52304.2032292.5082351.4952308.9342291.201
best22002245.8042210.672227.492253.5482224.9842222.5452206.5292300.2892210.0952336.1762301.7092229.95
worst22002310.0482240.4322285.3172258.4672354.8542338.9392299.2342308.7772325.4662366.3042315.5052320.685
std031.9696215.8085227.934122.26561466.0413157.7851657.401883.7984560.1925913.681597.4245844.98868
median22002293.1032211.8242272.6292255.9612338.9032321.7562252.1192303.8722317.2352351.7512309.2622307.086
rank16254129310813117
C17-F22mean2300.0732642.82308.3252830.3232304.9032656.5852321.072288.3642307.9962317.4342300.6032312.0132316.02
best23002540.3022304.872650.4972300.9242428.3982317.1642239.4192301.2022311.9092300.1132300.6612313.04
worst2300.292745.0792309.732962.7132309.1692835.9012327.162305.1282320.3932328.0492301.1172339.8162319.724
std0.15789398.441842.533489143.04573.781106197.88784.92420735.516459.4832338.1274140.45796520.246663.028103
median23002642.9092309.3512854.0412304.7592681.0212319.9792304.4552305.1952314.892300.5912303.7872315.658
rank21161341210159378
C17-F23mean2600.9192678.9612638.022688.4322614.0732708.1042643.7472619.192613.5712638.432767.0272639.9312650.15
best2600.0032649.1462627.8252663.2052611.7222631.5222628.6482608.072608.2012629.3662711.1382633.4772633.265
worst2602.872696.4132653.6332723.7172616.7062746.1752660.8922629.4692619.6632646.1972886.0712649.9942657.13
std1.43692224.1856213.1054830.66692.5829556.4370418.9711310.12026.41568.22916989.557118.0261112.41382
median2600.4032685.1432635.3122683.4022613.9332727.362642.7242619.6112613.212639.0782735.452638.1262655.102
rank11051131284261379
C17-F24mean2630.4882765.1852748.6592819.5592630.652663.0792742.6312676.0282732.4352738.5142731.3042746.8972710.324
best2516.6772724.9042719.2542798.4182614.7592542.9722716.1542515.4092707.6962724.2422519.3352738.7292553.544
worst2732.322827.0282766.5352875.2192639.5132789.3462771.832744.1332744.8782750.2652863.4262767.2522788.555
std126.788351.2231923.8855940.4584312.12815144.321625.01576117.276918.9334113.46482161.071214.8092115.5007
median2636.4772754.4042754.4232802.32634.16326602741.2692722.2852738.5832739.7752771.2292740.8042749.598
rank11211132394786105
C17-F25mean2932.6393107.1522914.3913227.1782918.1863103.9152909.2692921.8062936.0942931.6452921.9532922.8692947.757
best2898.0473046.0342901.1193168.9472914.3452908.6762786.0752903.5522920.8692915.7632904.9442900.7512934.789
worst2945.7933242.5622945.8623291.7472923.7513554.2292952.812941.282943.1512948.0712940.3972942.7872957.685
std25.12878100.304922.9334555.327274.509969330.285689.4505722.7811611.1677519.5383720.847225.0061410.61883
median2943.3593070.0072905.2923224.0082917.3242976.3782949.0962921.1972940.1782931.3732921.2352923.9692949.278
rank81221331114975610
C17-F26mean29003479.4922982.1283650.9983009.5273534.2543157.142913.4693228.0373177.4813741.7462916.8382910.943
best29003232.3652823.2933405.6942892.2663109.4322970.4682899.2242958.6922913.7882823.2922866.9132733.158
worst29003657.0943168.2513931.4143286.0614083.7183496.9992947.1223814.6433787.5754195.3012993.1583084.441
std4.04E−13205.1181200.8003250.5073201.5685505.4077257.827624.52868429.3952445.1069680.230258.49097181.6943
median29003514.2552968.4853633.4432929.8913471.9323080.5472903.7643069.4073004.2813974.1962903.6412913.088
rank11051261173981342
C17-F27mean3089.5183195.0723117.5923213.3173104.4023168.873182.1333093.1493114.2393113.3623208.9273131.4373152.052
best3089.5183152.3283095.5153122.3173092.1923101.6513171.923090.0863094.0813095.5823197.2613096.3713115.537
worst3089.5183264.3333173.5523377.9783132.9663204.0833190.7783094.9763169.9833160.5633226.0073175.683202.016
std2.86E−1352.4782740.68596122.713620.8749251.554628.4460942.49437140.4924434.3279113.2244536.3800139.34622
median3089.5183181.8143100.6523176.4873096.2263184.8743182.9163093.7673096.4463098.6513206.223126.8493145.328
rank11161339102541278
C17-F28mean31003538.2443231.2553698.5483216.1423532.5423274.8743233.5093324.8963307.8133415.9323291.1013240.069
best31003501.8063114.8133628.3943165.5763383.8533162.0063108.0943189.4613215.183407.0453181.1613146.602
worst31003566.3563357.7933752.193240.5293713.2073365.0583364.6193385.5923364.8263432.4543357.9783470.495
std029.96079117.145360.3279437.75453188.0645111.3176152.390899.0232675.8206912.4002188.80992168.1178
median31003542.4083226.2083706.8033229.2313516.5533286.2173230.6613362.2653325.6233412.1153312.6333171.588
rank11231321164981075
C17-F29mean3132.2413319.3113271.9413350.0563201.7853230.3353327.3883201.4253255.2743210.0033324.7953256.0253231.194
best3130.0763296.7483203.5893284.0883165.33167.823231.4253145.0813188.3183171.0723232.2373166.9633187.085
worst3134.8413338.0253339.4663409.4973242.5173286.2163451.9113275.1763358.6913234.5743575.4033325.3213269.021
std2.70154418.4985776.5084871.0930536.9710252.816100.138559.041888.9021430.80604182.302977.9427738.20256
median3132.0233321.2363272.3543353.323199.6613233.6523313.1073192.7213237.0433217.1833245.7693265.9083234.335
rank11091335122741186
C17-F30mean3418.7341,986,627302,228.13,202,386405,175.557,6521.7900,432309,219.2852,117101,430.5720,781.7381,593.11,359,456
best3394.6821,492,625137,971.4774,68415,639.03169,23861,831.738355.74730,785.9327,099.55580,958.58815.27517,597.5
worst3442.9072,767,382716,5814,982,029597,963.41,116,4903,277,4571,055,3271,226,511145,285.1859,319.6730,649.22,986,435
std30.22288599,846.9301,9671,923,438287,816.6438,153.61,725,459543,107.4613,998.157,560.13126,804430,738.31,265,501
median3418.6731,843,250177,180.13,526,415503,549.7510,179.4131,219.786,597.281,075,585116,668.6721,424.3393,453.9966,895.8
rank11231367104928511
Sum rank37319178351107287240117189191240184199
Mean rank1.275862116.13793112.103453.6896559.8965528.2758624.0344836.5172416.5862078.2758626.3448286.862069
Total rank1114122109367958
Table 2. Optimization results of the CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 30).
Table 2. Optimization results of the CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 30).
GAOWSOAVOARSAMPATSAWOAMVOGWOTLBOGSAPSOGA
C17-F1mean1002.24E+105830.6963.51E+1026,029.031.53E+101.45E+09462,149.61.42E+095.27E+098,970,3931.2E+091.52E+08
best1001.93E+101944.3993.13E+1011,980.079.61E+091.15E+09358,035.12.35E+083.33E+094300.2344659.2941.14E+08
worst1002.81E+108674.0844.32E+1039,572.942.08E+101.8E+09588,039.24.29E+097.85E+0931,306,9154.79E+092.1E+08
std8.93E−154.44E+093268.7395.96E+0914,512.445.72E+093.66E+08123,857.42.09E+092.06E+0916,373,7972.61E+0945,358,470
median1002.12E+106352.153.3E+1026,281.551.54E+101.43E+09451,262.15.87E+084.94E+092,285,1782,732,5771.43E+08
rank11221331194810576
C17-F3mean30083,231.6338,295.662,966.841080.01640,427.18198,100.31654.4235,704.829,742.7281,960.4927,361.07142,883.2
best30075,990.4520,886.0148,763.59835.630838,295.97163,903.71359.79731,222.9125,372.6470,568.2519,591.81108,167.1
worst30091,401.0849,468.5568,418.51327.76242,603.54227,5912234.11839,845.5432,187.2490,214.3935,088.1198,501.9
std08274.72913,338.2510,339.67240.50652328.61328,830.94435.08253847.7713343.8049653.5337695.20546,670.58
median30082,767.541,413.9167,342.641078.33440,404.6200,453.31511.88235,875.3730,705.583,529.6627,382.18132,431.9
rank11179281336510412
C17-F4mean458.56165575.746510.56748459.244492.18523951.847802.8511495.2865559.4071846.3066578.9619604.0431764.5042
best458.56163162.415490.11075447.077481.9965964.989746.8999487.3344514.4662669.0919560.641511.0539719.023
worst458.56167521.568525.68511,795.17513.34176521.647870.971509.3757584.9411190.549598.5419764.1292785.5119
std01966.28916.43182867.91615.66592553.53460.9052410.6005133.63155254.44117.40204125.686333.99235
median458.56165809.5513.2378297.365486.70134160.375796.7667492.218569.1106762.7929578.3323570.4947776.7408
rank11241321193510678
C17-F5mean502.4874804.9869702.7953838.5171581.1528761.4417786.479612.1267614.2579741.2772700.5764623.3892683.0927
best500.995787.2262670.5593815.5432559.181736.3111758.9541602.1272582.3474719.2387684.4747605.1798643.8764
worst503.9798820.5739755.7975865.0304603.5573787.5596801.0327639.4914638.7938766.5766722.3585665.0013737.5901
std1.39790915.4253441.6181926.2463120.2373325.9250420.3952219.8725530.2495123.854217.7500230.7036342.73087
median502.4874806.0737692.4122836.7474580.9364760.9481792.9647603.4442617.9452739.6468697.7363611.6878675.4521
rank11281321011349756
C17-F6mean600668.4481640.1894671.1451603.1735666.0123665.3591621.1771610.5213637.3057648.544640.3844626.1082
best600667.3664638.4326666.4683601.939652.8759656.1085611.1992604.3109631.0881647.7581629.852620.0473
worst600669.7374642.8848676.7635604.5364673.7459669.9162631.8469616.418647.1292649.5544649.4784630.0802
std7.14E−141.0664922.1104695.1715451.22825410.616336.89327710.644135.4337457.6176450.8308979.481264.784344
median600668.3442639.7201670.6744603.1092668.7137667.7058620.8312610.6782635.5028648.4318641.1036627.1526
rank11271321110436985
C17-F7mean733.4781228.9951099.7121263.799843.9511165.8781236.662850.2233877.22891039.196950.1445870.9795946.9537
best732.81861186.2021007.0891248.902817.61541039.5961201.701801.3773815.1492970.212916.1667849.6304909.8194
worst734.51991259.2681234.8881290.136896.38081293.0071302.601911.4905908.44921103.6621008.406892.3541000.135
std0.82060536.18977110.59819.9946238.76962121.068650.7009951.4594145.7917577.0205945.6864319.1172741.38543
median733.28671235.2551078.4361258.078830.90391165.4541221.173844.0127892.65861041.454938.0026870.9668938.93
rank11191321012358746
C17-F8mean803.32981054.375939.02891086.282888.68421032.2241007.835891.0273889.88691001.196949.1516916.8257970.2233
best801.20231042.296914.11881068.901882.1376995.1895958.6942864.7594883.8931984.9519929.263906.7325955.6456
worst804.15741071.703957.411109.377896.65311121.211044.586915.7834896.6911030.481971.32930.3388987.7654
std1.54628815.0198921.5344222.050676.52608965.1000139.8673924.55185.84070321.8290520.3533711.1746917.18677
median803.97981051.751942.29341083.424887.97311006.2491014.029891.7831889.4817994.6756948.0116915.1158968.7411
rank11261321110439758
C17-F9mean9009515.3244272.2119225.6321079.7369962.8299568.2984810.7041927.555082.2813636.6063182.6061257.708
best9008134.163187.4469011.84928.97296111.3147340.2053844.3451477.3033695.5433195.7151970.9431094.368
worst90010,808.324864.8229356.9391228.38513,414.1311,390.817265.4092581.5987613.1254353.5294753.2661447.598
std7.14E−141212.907814.2805161.866150.61553281.8012223.3511786.248580.27821928.028561.79541287.229184.2518
median9009559.4084518.2879266.8751080.79310,162.939771.0894066.5311825.654510.2283498.5913003.1081244.433
rank11171021312849653
C17-F10mean2293.2676711.4665199.5847297.2333948.2696147.4516093.074512.6354631.6597314.0394682.424846.6965790.657
best1851.7566257.1754542.6756605.223601.534997.1175353.0144231.1794212.3626960.4464431.5024657.1015397.511
worst2525.0277003.8295653.8197857.5744375.6926681.4647277.1494817.1474957.4967486.5315057.2835215.5816319.118
std326.8979348.455562.337566.1807388.8296843.4916936.7337300.4517340.3693261.3508301.6935272.724472.6668
median2398.1426792.435300.9227363.073907.9266455.6115871.0574501.1064678.3897404.5894620.4484757.0525723.001
rank11171221093413568
C17-F11mean1102.9876588.6481243.6797700.2811168.1724557.7636855.8931291.9322045.6811868.2732647.5711236.4288014.356
best1100.9955445.5411190.2346294.0321121.7523286.8964977.7141249.1061356.1071531.0972080.8331210.8013047.23
worst1105.9777524.4231292.9768649.7051200.9976797.83610,068.81331.23882.6072497.3563226.2791262.52514,907.23
std2.342568993.801746.635891174.21337.260241718.5022416.29248.668411334.469466.8468586.849724.954975531.35
median1102.4876692.3151245.7527928.6941174.974073.1616188.5291293.7121472.0051722.3192641.5871236.1937051.482
rank11041229115768313
C17-F12mean1744.5536.02E+0917,863,3869.34E+0921,141.864.34E+092.12E+089,618,73045,007,8112.59E+081.71E+082,197,9636,585,298
best1721.814.97E+092,515,7158.33E+0915,112.242.24E+0954,247,8684,467,6934,371,6841.65E+0832,963,915240,1104,560,763
worst1764.9377.64E+0943,624,0261.18E+1026,966.25.68E+094.23E+0823,269,43494,380,1384.49E+085.45E+084,367,2358,619,582
std21.93231.24E+0919,693,1551.77E+095497.1141.62E+091.85E+089,919,15142,706,2411.4E+082.72E+081,937,2432,003,322
median1745.7335.73E+0912,656,9018.64E+0921,244.54.73E+091.85E+085,368,89740,639,7122.1E+0852,257,9882,092,2536,580,423
rank11261321195710834
C17-F13mean1315.7914.89E+09128,357.79.03E+091875.2261.25E+09774,665.878,141.05646,635.775,500,36431,494.8427,975.8810,201,641
best1314.5872.38E+0971,240.84.74E+091607.38416,892,010365,628.331,432.5378,361.2652,431,39825,563.0311,712.822,768,082
worst1318.6466.85E+09202,845.21.11E+102399.9194.35E+091,145,245156,691.72,006,0331.11E+0846,031.2662,954.1721,943,429
std2.1072582.01E+0959,484.263.16E+09389.84552.27E+09442,347.863,996.54999,080.827,735,11010,663.1125,672.398,943,170
median1314.9675.17E+09119,672.51.01E+101746.8013.23E+08793,89562,219.97251,074.469,119,45727,192.5318,618.278,047,527
rank11261321185710439
C17-F14mean1423.0171,620,883232,138.61,878,3431439.961,004,6111,901,64117,597.69456,074.8119,821978,295.316,252.171,716,822
best1422.014999,618.132,641.8944,177.71436.666718,913.230,911.574476.32329,593.7769,721.47634,875.72922.639284,338.6
worst1423.9932,051,782537,168.92,796,9411444.6191,419,1655,808,99529,816.42977,253.7137,833.31,476,99029,507.032,894,290
std0.87954535,959.6242,266.2969,969.93.964006349,745.92,887,68511,878.97523,579.836,363.11431,297.512,638.361,310,027
median1423.031,716,065179,371.81,886,1261439.277940,183.2883,327.918,049.02408,725.8135,864.6900,657.916,289.511,844,330
rank11061229134758311
C17-F15mean1503.1292.6E+0832,238.745.11E+081615.84212,285,1624,311,39236,795.6913,526,0914,387,75213,965.854316.719816,946.7
best1502.4622.25E+089568.8654.41E+081579.3034,839,717198,819.821,398.484,202.47996,467.39982.6331863.552150,141
worst1504.2652.88E+0852,213.635.64E+081632.20328,577,47813,998,11260,719.5950,643,2128,259,35018,859.257827.4921,830,094
std0.93110433,963,78319,599.8465,714,95126.7183111,924,9747,123,97718,547.326,943,0333,240,9854038.2152873.981836,631.2
median1502.8932.64E+0833,586.245.19E+081625.9317,861,7261,524,31732,532.391,688,4754,147,59613,510.763787.916643,775.8
rank11251321086119437
C17-F16mean1663.4693976.132850.1934538.0352018.0753081.8243912.8242497.5092459.7313246.3753418.882790.3692806.553
best1614.723677.1362498.2763857.041729.782684.6413280.5972281.5472296.233046.0423224.0392566.732476.202
worst1744.1184228.3613313.7515153.7852265.6183317.8314670.8992689.5472594.4523477.3723554.1783046.4543136.355
std67.44425260.6856370.1947729.5955262.3233301.4003627.3598194.6654161.2045207.3804160.5896243.2084346.6029
median1647.5193999.5112794.3734570.6572038.4523162.4123849.9012509.472474.1213231.0433448.6512774.1462806.828
rank11271328114391056
C17-F17mean1728.0993184.022385.0593444.4541861.5543068.8492705.6942048.7931922.2042146.0882427.8832266.7842113.355
best1718.7612670.3622263.793120.0141753.2912170.0822296.6541992.2261798.0161954.462328.4572067.5772068.723
worst1733.6593809.3262471.1654025.8361921.8795414.8672971.6422181.7552057.3252387.6792561.3292612.1662177.383
std7.30039526.9921100.2765449.894180.945621704.675316.4397.00013131.8202199.0191120.9462266.350253.95218
median1729.9873128.1962402.643315.9831885.5232345.2232777.242010.5941916.7382121.1072410.8732193.6972103.656
rank11281321110436975
C17-F18mean1825.69624,287,5342,263,99227,925,5431895.05931,053,7155,043,241547,132.2358,761.71,423,873440,293.8117,5193,115,606
best1822.5246,996,614241,331.59,028,5381873.0111,138,9721,699,708137,877.967,292.89661,159.2246,961.183,697.642,432,402
worst1828.4247,167,4524,516,91554,862,4621907.86858,848,11510,408,9321,480,690921,379.61,790,003857,003.1139,3894,566,779
std2.94051319,326,6592,180,75721,151,99717.0312534,876,4274,073,042681,637.6437,442.1564,848.5306,279.126,498.851,064,963
median1825.9221,493,0352,148,86023,905,5851899.67932,113,8874,032,162284,980.2223,187.31,622,165328,605.4123,494.62,731,622
rank11181221310647539
C17-F19mean1910.9894.96E+0858,126.478.37E+081923.5092.52E+0812,243,666803,0413,446,8414,915,04270,150.4438,301.81,385,589
best1908.843.71E+0812,610.396.04E+081920.9613,125,0251,593,44520,530.5460,786.572,551,34338,175.17765.051547,648.4
worst1913.0956.46E+08129,139.11.27E+091928.2826.97E+0821,141,2241,805,17311,114,2556,986,55994,307.98114,161.12,461,289
std2.102611.5E+0855,242.463.2E+083.5576553.49E+089,701,357945,1845,600,9082,374,24725,431.8955,229.08878,355.7
median1911.014.84E+0845,378.187.37E+081922.3961.53E+0813,119,997693,230.51,306,1615,061,13374,059.3415,640.511,266,709
rank11241321110689537
C17-F20mean2065.7872796.2482569.7212842.6182174.5052754.1312743.4982543.5022345.4812709.5772891.3832493.682431.832
best2029.5212717.0772435.4992688.7812060.522632.9452579.9272330.1852181.4052644.372572.0292447.9542375.804
worst2161.1262880.762758.1872923.5772263.0922870.7252902.4162905.2852492.1292815.4183316.1212610.0982471.322
std69.2665672.88532151.0366116.035192.04375106.7938148.3052272.6655138.649286.75523340.155984.9986344.58253
median2036.252793.5772542.5992879.0582187.2042756.4272745.8232469.2692354.1952689.262838.6912458.3352440.101
rank11171221096381354
C17-F21mean2308.4562586.1122429.7332635.5232365.4072510.7322575.6542398.8762385.7762476.6482541.0792424.192474.167
best2304.0342503.8282239.1332566.6992355.8322313.9752511.0332367.3112357.3352464.9562524.5042406.8252444.909
worst2312.9872639.6492565.0112717.6662381.2282626.132631.4292423.6782398.4342485.832571.9652437.4642519.797
std4.85278370.34927149.17771.4877712.14978150.341865.1314825.5473921.1464911.6067322.9808715.8608634.85109
median2308.4022600.4862457.3942628.8642362.2832551.4112580.0772402.2572393.6672477.9022533.9242426.2352465.981
rank11261329114381057
C17-F22mean23007197.7355291.9656988.5362302.8727878.4216699.7013725.8712648.4515216.9325770.4824527.2682646.874
best23006905.2862302.8956100.7952301.8737679.1995875.1952305.9552536.9432665.4253766.1232436.132582.523
worst23007653.9516446.7917880.6462304.5587972.3157435.1945489.0792877.3818045.7996651.3216550.8382696.642
std0348.18982172.161832.47631.310487149.9847705.5591809.434169.38723188.2161463.7622059.34161.57958
median23007115.8516209.0876986.3522302.5287931.0856744.2083554.2262589.7395078.2526332.2414561.0532654.166
rank11281121310547963
C17-F23mean2655.0813119.0932889.6963166.6462646.193123.3142993.8812725.5092737.4112869.7413618.1782866.8132931.68
best2653.7453052.692774.0593125.1862474.163028.3422848.342694.3732710.1092830.9033532.3972816.9762885.392
worst2657.3773197.283047.493213.9192711.7933301.6863087.772740.8452761.0132920.5873703.1432919.2042994.691
std1.7991869.32291126.544141.69167125.1344132.9871111.36223.1359824.9744941.0847498.8754547.8562249.70222
median2654.63113.2022868.6173163.742699.4043081.6153019.7072733.4092739.2612863.7373618.5852865.5362923.318
rank21071211193461358
C17-F24mean2831.4093257.4363132.2523344.2252882.9573227.7363085.0122902.2452915.4023020.713299.9393097.7413180.377
best2829.9923222.6373012.4733264.8022867.5063133.143030.052861.2532905.3382998.2613265.8983029.9043098.613
worst2832.3663326.5043265.1633479.852889.7383273.0313108.0482920.1822922.2863053.1363333.1433197.1423247.25
std1.24671850.93461120.9993107.605511.3607670.9167440.2079729.984298.27370325.1752132.1739777.6404375.42338
median2831.643240.3013125.6863316.1232887.2923252.3873100.9752913.7732916.9913015.7213300.3573081.9593187.823
rank11181321063451279
C17-F25mean2886.6983800.0882906.3124342.2392891.2223392.3223056.3592907.0232979.6363050.1642981.4872894.4063078.72
best2886.6913473.9642893.1653818.6982884.5613063.6813023.92886.1142945.8262945.7912970.6452887.2243063.826
worst2886.7074043.7692939.9125039.772897.3383732.3743073.0822961.8473041.4783168.5022993.1132910.13089.885
std0.008278258.936424.42658553.43536.284407355.696425.1283339.8830248.18031116.305910.1272411.4892712.25239
median2886.6983841.3092896.0854255.2432891.4953386.6173064.2262890.0652965.623043.1822981.0952890.1513080.585
rank11241321195687310
C17-F26mean3578.658348.5626747.98857.4412959.8947963.377654.1544548.824356.6895532.3536873.7354601.9414208.71
best3559.8417978.6415633.7698131.1482958.0887389.9847017.3524248.4514014.1434334.8465962.2463474.5573875.117
worst3607.6869012.3597403.17410,142.892962.5518325.1998394.3225096.2844887.2136669.6777348.1785942.9594617.04
std24.78775524.3091846.99941027.8922.329347436.4335615.4601428.6104405.49091164.857703.25451254.391338.6951
median3573.5368201.6256977.3288577.8642959.478069.1487602.4714425.2734262.75562.4457092.2594495.1234171.342
rank21281311110547963
C17-F27mean3207.0183557.8593336.6143692.5513214.5163439.1433399.2033229.0813245.0653304.1384738.2653270.0643427.096
best3200.7493504.7423259.8453447.5973200.7013325.413252.4873213.2633239.7323239.464345.4663234.9373360.528
worst3210.6563647.6533401.0683944.5153234.5373654.3793507.3643250.6643256.43367.5345025.6063307.4873464.856
std5.05822969.4023781.40933231.997416.86964160.4216118.756817.151788.32264757.63497362.139733.4662549.7926
median3208.3353539.5213342.7713689.0473211.4133388.3913418.4813226.1983242.0633304.784790.9943268.9163441.501
rank11171221083461359
C17-F28mean31004571.0473257.5145360.1963212.5024031.573407.3883249.5293545.0393607.8843479.2893312.4683532.676
best31004364.7643228.6685089.8783196.1053546.4023354.0063217.7683371.5263476.9233416.9933195.1733485.352
worst31004796.8823289.0775645.6163242.4134524.1533454.0183276.9143966.0993904.8163607.9943495.2593585.531
std2.86E−13201.190126.93721288.657422.52248493.92248.4233626.91766307.589218.222394.7696151.371551.32503
median31004561.2713256.1555352.6453205.7444027.8633410.7653251.7173421.2663524.8993446.0853279.723529.911
rank11241321163910758
C17-F29mean3353.755165.1654238.4835356.0413653.9075027.7794894.0573814.8323769.3464394.0824873.2044097.124200.257
best3325.3854781.0323925.1314815.5723502.2494549.3844640.7113697.5893678.8524101.8214617.3583940.753860.919
worst3370.7975597.4274432.8616103.1853791.6835814.2685060.4873902.2693867.54822.1735105.3344318.1264492.071
std21.42746430.9386247.3722699.807139.048639.3948194.848997.5288287.40834336.9599272.1672172.6724311.0435
median3359.415141.1014297.975252.7033660.8484873.7324937.5153829.7353765.5174326.1674885.0624064.8024224.02
rank11271321110438956
C17-F30mean5007.8541.23E+091,226,5612.43E+097628.45733,024,51933,699,5822,659,1525,482,51232,533,7361,945,470235,225.1604,275.2
best4955.4499.06E+08433,022.51.74E+096346.96911,291,1006,721,212478,549.61,223,75617,415,4421,698,2347391.654167,926.1
worst5086.3961.35E+092,171,2462.68E+0910,132.6777,162,99654,000,0733,806,63414,803,05668,241,2372,340,871887,651.61,155,344
std64.181962.36E+08790,932.44.97E+081930.532,540,98121,448,1991,615,4226,825,43226,053,037301,100473,587.2523,179.4
median4994.7851.33E+091,150,9872.64E+097017.09421,821,99037,038,5213,175,7132,951,61922,239,1331,871,38822,928.54546,915.6
rank11251321011789634
Sum rank3133418236157305284128151232231139204
Mean rank1.06896611.517246.27586212.448281.96551710.517249.7931034.4137935.20689787.9655174.7931037.034483
Total rank11261321110359847
Table 3. Optimization results of the CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 50).
Table 3. Optimization results of the CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 50).
GAOWSOAVOARSAMPATSAWOAMVOGWOTLBOGSAPSOGA
C17-F1mean1005.09E+108,540,5487.98E+105,463,3213.24E+106.56E+094,128,9147.97E+091.77E+101.46E+102.16E+098.86E+09
best1004.55E+101,215,2256.98E+102,108,5522.99E+103.87E+092,756,5065.74E+091.2E+101.16E+108.85E+088.44E+09
worst1005.45E+1021,279,3918.72E+1013,852,7123.49E+109.82E+095,284,9681.09E+102.39E+101.75E+102.88E+099.54E+09
std04.35E+099,547,4618.27E+096,130,6102.27E+093.06E+091,169,1382.34E+096.24E+092.59E+099.53E+085.65E+08
median1005.19E+105,833,7888.11E+102,946,0113.25E+106.28E+094,237,0917.61E+091.74E+101.46E+102.44E+098.73E+09
rank11241331162710958
C17-F3mean300137,010.9126,882.3136,511.517,391.7695,002.13201,272.341,494.88112,747.585,794.71153,610.6125,333.9226,348.9
best300117,906.797,696.29124,125.115,025.0483,816.75152,134.733,432.1899,401.3865,216.63139,017.694,437.17188,829.6
worst300157,634.1153,730.6148,32820,524.62101,529.7306,297.451,471.59126,680.597,304.28172,990.6162,490.2259,863.3
std018,198.32274,92.8311,628.692686.6458787.68378,962.988212.56712,134.7716,021.9918,038.9832,119.6831,660.35
median300136,251.3128,051.1136,796.517,008.797,331.05173,328.540,537.89112,454.190,328.97151,217122,204228,351.4
rank11089251236411713
C17-F4mean470.367912,640.05670.918920,297.76529.22017151.7181728.284556.48521299.3682455.8512684.969941.94221375.405
best428.51279836.365654.608113,423.73493.88695740.6541128.951520.5781981.79531417.5072250.684654.66161194.41
worst525.725214,388.37689.320924,235.9581.41099217.0822051.556618.02261569.4324151.9152849.681617.7811483.827
std53.94892214.02718.011755368.9544.63041598.366449.355846.63019289.30421307.92316.5375492.8826138.0845
median463.616813,167.74669.873321,765.71520.79136824.5681866.314543.66991323.1232126.9922819.756747.6631411.692
rank11241321183691057
C17-F5mean504.72611037.655832.03311062.51728.56951077.7915.4502730.7567719.4511951.9034788.0505773.5328860.9533
best503.97981009.534796.54311053.971649.5934956.2157883.3966658.6571686.5838906.6592733.7376717.5713825.7998
worst505.96981062.384874.74221070.73790.46631164.931937.424834.3487751.0828977.7863821.9891830.6777884.0127
std1.03671727.6162436.057627.54591264.31447111.732528.6219884.2870934.4355234.2695545.1124150.2686928.8839
median504.47731039.35828.42351062.669737.10911094.826920.4901715.0105720.069961.584798.2378772.9411867.0004
rank11171231394210658
C17-F6mean600681.9603652.3174683.7161610.9482677.4992684.2625633.2341620.654655.7374650.412646.7268642.4574
best600679.4617648.6703681.4595608.2624660.2885679.3851624.4301615.8844644.814645.9264644.6453631.948
worst600686.6001656.7956686.2413614.4981692.0708691.2724653.6353628.6895663.5099653.3149649.7848652.834
std03.6189894.0924982.4969332.90661415.274145.50932215.030816.1676878.6164493.4841652.6211479.547808
median600680.8897651.9018683.5817610.5162678.8188683.1963627.4354619.021657.3128651.2033646.2385642.5239
rank11181221013439765
C17-F7mean756.72981667.5151560.1231752.1531019.5141574.2691595.7871040.8121050.8371401.1421343.7271164.3071255.661
best754.75431651.9051504.1141689.052964.56311449.4441546.8011005.2441024.4211289.81193.9771033.2131194.715
worst758.35221687.8451622.181844.4191066.0221694.5821666.0031072.3621072.6241446.9581459.11355.1261292.502
std1.6904916.2790554.2361374.3020553.48986127.824559.2694129.940424.7560681.06107127.8115152.371347.12675
median756.90651665.1541557.0991737.5711023.7351576.5251585.1721042.821053.1521433.9041360.9161134.4451267.713
rank11291321011348756
C17-F8mean805.7211351.1151100.2311374.5611003.6711365.8811270.3481013.3561023.5411268.1781113.7891042.7061213.494
best802.98491306.3131057.2141351.374973.84831277.8331160.6982.3324990.53581217.3121103.6081002.8711180.728
worst810.94451385.4191143.5081389.6171034.271477.0471366.5661070.7621059.9411318.5661129.0031102.5331230.719
std3.89161540.6208553.3055417.8998234.1946292.6151892.0336242.7416334.191345.1507412.9141549.5014224.50797
median804.47731356.3631100.1011378.6271003.2821354.3221277.1131000.1651021.8441268.4171111.2731032.711221.264
rank11161321210349758
C17-F9mean90031,051.111,675.1331,214.43238.67932,551.6128,392.117,082.886244.48220,791.089460.7569138.50211,261.84
best90029,810.8511,146.5729,323.192032.09529,890.0526,453.79511.0325336.4115,961.048656.5578548.8429310.568
worst90034,048.7312,380.9332,909.384682.58636,436.4433,315.5622,458.827025.39424,361.6310,359.3810,329.2113,039.73
std1.01E−132195.966559.631783.1681191.5983056.2323579.5386649.355980.52683819.075778.1417888.75832162.608
median90030,172.4111,586.5231,312.53120.01831,939.9826,899.5718,180.846308.06121,420.819413.5448837.97911,348.54
rank11171221310839546
C17-F10mean4347.15711,960.597997.31812,995.766477.47710,922.7810,929.367432.6318285.74212,815.78228.9537542.41910,862.63
best3555.13211,511.487500.43912,777.045611.47110,052.089913.2496365.316430.5212,259.667464.2187304.67810,276.37
worst5099.79512,681.48505.03913,415.447088.81611,917.9811,991.428254.13612,660.4913,271.599251.9547955.95311,437.09
std701.6898588.0922446.6302320.7599774.7588852.148980.4482881.3483204.405539.0572824.0267309.7522536.1431
median4366.85111,824.737991.89712,895.296604.8110,860.5210,906.387555.5387025.97812,865.778099.8197454.52210,868.54
rank11151329103712648
C17-F11mean1128.43513,276.151549.5418,035.481251.30611,182.394518.4761518.2135397.4744531.99412,260.421605.81320,608.14
best1121.2512,245.451447.08316,062.881204.2889640.2544005.9691391.8683312.8554260.57111,504.421377.52812,119.73
worst1133.13213,924.571673.98419,534.311281.37713,383.075612.8421642.6159241.985027.75513,871.781877.55127,569.61
std5.923599809.4648113.87461578.69537.327741755.825805.482119.83592981.794385.64771182.421233.54916954.273
median1129.67813,467.31538.54718,272.371259.77910,853.124227.5471519.1854517.5324419.82511,832.751584.08721,371.61
rank11141229638710513
C17-F12mean2905.1023.72E+1064,228,7356.06E+1013,971,1682.2E+101.13E+0969,199,5138.18E+084.31E+091.85E+091.37E+091.76E+08
best2527.3763.12E+1028,088,2584.42E+1013,160,6009.3E+099.31E+0838,018,1571.3E+082.43E+096.11E+0812,579,08156,622,701
worst3168.374.46E+1098,280,3688.32E+1014,626,2843.71E+101.53E+091.09E+081.52E+098.47E+093.33E+093.95E+092.43E+08
std297.87696.56E+0940,914,9891.95E+1074,4618.41.25E+103.02E+0832,549,7657.54E+083.08E+091.22E+092E+0989,011,221
median2962.3313.64E+1065,273,1575.76E+1014,048,8952.09E+101.02E+0964,796,4118.12E+083.16E+091.74E+097.55E+082.02E+08
rank11231321174610985
C17-F13mean1340.12.1E+1012,8969.33.67E+1015,885.298.59E+0980,889,21520,7549.23.04E+084.99E+0815,793,6584.07E+0835,383,568
best1333.7811.21E+1031,511.271.86E+108423.5684.57E+0960,813,81913,0518.81.38E+084.06E+0828,858.8545,666.323,065,689
worst1343.0152.86E+1028,0915.25.28E+1018,693.21.34E+1091,852,07332,1861.47.65E+086.82E+0853,232,1631.03E+0947,290,081
std4.6604147.89E+0911,6012.51.56E+105419.3634.06E+0914,937,75088,542.933.35E+081.35E+0827,629,0745.45E+0811,773,479
median1341.8012.16E+1010,1725.43.78E+1018,212.28.22E+0985,445,485188,908.31.57E+084.54E+084,956,8053E+0835,589,250
rank11231321174810596
C17-F14mean1429.45822,138,1751,043,12341,274,7491558.9882,291,7624,066,361162,996.9982,315.2738,324.212,918,985489,6829,561,064
best1425.9957,231,304323,25612,659,1921546.115605,547.53,600,215103,335.776,691.77608,829.92,929,237176,046.74,704,918
worst1431.93943,338,3972,484,23083,568,2781582.8433,634,8014,832,202316,175.91,895,369851,820.321,211,653784,154.516,455,299
std2.85276116,583,0701,069,02632,825,93518.301441,366,949578,994.2111,516.1808,058.7137,9399,020,287270,853.15,399,179
median1429.9518,991,500682,503.834,435,7631553.4972,463,3493,916,514116,238.1978,600746,323.413,767,524499,263.58,542,020
rank11271328936511410
C17-F15mean1530.662.22E+0932,718.173.57E+092239.7361.45E+098,462,655103,834.45,074,51460,186,6671.68E+089569.487,314,943
best1526.3591.57E+0920,328.872.79E+092110.3655E+08780,284.243,186.6736,399.2435,292,02516,631.352695.8932,485,932
worst1532.9532.91E+0959,974.554.23E+092382.7543.16E+0915,801,114154,709.413,365,07278,344,0856.53E+0818,491.0115,875,307
std3.1931066.85E+0820,003.626.95E+08156.94261.35E+097,185,50853,956.696,329,48419,594,0133.52E+087647.8036,444,348
median1531.6642.2E+0925,284.633.63E+092232.9131.08E+098,634,612108,720.83,448,29263,555,27910,185,6518545.5075,449,267
rank11241321185691037
C17-F16mean2062.8915745.4244099.7266855.5642733.5244345.0375070.6533223.8623221.3864261.5533759.8013235.293724.023
best1728.65021.1463797.1525232.8642579.8663842.7384253.4273028.8692863.6363913.8293472.3652862.7843178.337
worst2242.6637271.3214460.87410,097.62996.4414587.6645643.4263415.3283726.2514499.4114087.9843654.384158.479
std253.47931148.025329.12932425.116213.3552379.1183662.8411172.0789440.5687269.1825338.718424.9433463.8989
median2140.155344.6144070.446045.8952678.8964474.8735192.8793225.6263147.8284316.4863739.4273211.9983779.638
rank11281321011439756
C17-F17mean2021.1516861.8543396.2759790.2922543.3973736.7424228.4252980.0162892.8283900.1413619.7253219.3413418.688
best1900.435295.6653005.8857230.6272472.9013056.5193816.9792498.9742763.4833344.9263228.9713028.0073217.262
worst2138.2678331.7443851.93612,612.772598.6854136.5524427.2283401.683134.9844230.5553885.983511.963621.124
std146.08051361.803434.87432412.36358.14989512.1874310.0241406.0587180.4802427.0499308.8662250.608205.6284
median2022.9546910.0033363.649658.8842551.0013876.954334.7463009.7052836.4234012.5423681.9743168.6993418.184
rank11261329114310857
C17-F18mean1830.6264,614,7322,061,09795,851,41525,555.6529,921,14038,563,4142,256,9254,888,6947,002,9107,180,913706,632.78,087,329
best1822.23951,707,525270,404.943,098,1563688.8932,689,73610,443,4671,328,303936,1814,814,5163,394,229300,329.92,900,345
worst1841.67376,192,9193,774,0951.33E+0838,192.7385,479,16169,803,9173,512,0259,749,1859,733,75613,417,4271,157,20619,439,061
std8.86379911,510,2241,931,07148,091,45616,404.4841,406,91531,950,4141,136,5605,005,9282,264,6684,972,069427,457.78,313,863
median1829.28565,279,2432,099,9441.04E+0830,170.4815,757,83137,003,1372,093,6864,434,7066,731,6845,955,997684,497.75,004,954
rank11241321011567839
C17-F19mean1925.1852.32E+09221,975.93.28E+092077.5242.28E+095,839,9144,374,448992,916.843,270,616386,089.3336,264.1846,771.8
best1924.4371.11E+0978,106.342.21E+092017.9478,346,421878,605.23,329,863486,155.236,735,230222,137.62767.461662,438.1
worst1926.1213.88E+09457,483.64.05E+092106.9596.67E+0913,763,9015,424,9671,526,50254,948,013845,719.2839,444.51,146,958
std0.8612191.27E+09179,180.78.92E+0844.252953.24E+096,026,000930,913.9473,371.68,823,346333,598.3434,170.1248,843.6
median1925.0912.15E+09176,156.83.42E+092092.5961.23E+094,358,5754,371,482979,50540,699,610238,250.2251,422.2788,845.3
rank11231321198710546
C17-F20mean2160.1723643.7443162.6423872.4172645.3363307.2833576.7533174.5582614.7943598.473825.6393182.3923078.958
best2104.4233321.0112663.8993597.1292368.732883.8383286.4722964.0022407.1863523.563591.532866.2522986.774
worst2323.8913788.5893609.9764028.182920.3363500.0994068.8623607.9552803.7563711.2664098.013324.363179.235
std118.7931238.5395433.907208.6822253.4857309.8258374.6389327.1354227.429994.65403226.473231.137885.67285
median2106.1863732.6883188.3463932.1792646.143422.5973475.843063.1372624.1183579.5283806.5073269.4773074.912
rank11151338962101274
C17-F21mean2314.8952911.2962708.1992944.322445.6822881.3932873.5922552.1412507.3042765.1082782.4222625.1872703.313
best2309.0452881.9152601.4852852.0032426.0122791.6672773.1162523.9812458.182741.5182723.1442561.212680.796
worst2329.6832939.2092867.0733021.4042469.5683024.5142957.3422586.1262545.7792806.1392818.912714.6612722.612
std10.7597733.25097123.95286.1991824.23715109.039385.2016635.2333940.9641932.6094546.0853472.9084120.6077
median2310.4262912.0312682.122951.9362443.5752854.6962881.9562549.2292512.6292756.3872793.8162612.4382704.922
rank11271321110438956
C17-F22mean3095.16913,541.510,253.3714,628.255296.69512,479.8312,417.098414.5818307.77514,155.8310,502.699065.0038273.435
best230013,306.658551.13714,094.072319.70912,172.512,192.356411.7787766.88313,363.2810,038.767990.4543782.2
worst5480.67813,892.8212,09415,153.488384.77812,641.7112,871.7298348789.71114,962.8210,913.829810.04312,642.36
std1730.769289.65741783.239479.85043573.342238.4903337.21361579.056458.2178922.9868390.3125845.85564946.644
median230013,483.2510,184.1714,632.735241.14812,552.5612,302.158706.2728337.25314,148.6110,529.099229.7568334.592
rank11171321095412863
C17-F23mean2743.3543689.5793233.4643755.062887.0993623.2243625.4112972.5842999.2873224.7474495.9793307.1343294.604
best2729.9883621.2253159.53712.1182874.0423441.4153467.1842936.8812929.0373150.4664326.6573249.0293181.817
worst2752.6573772.6073306.2033790.7272906.7813914.2423711.3763036.3713118.563283.5764642.8093356.6713417.095
std10.9009971.6763974.9305436.1586415.31114244.6359119.644750.8230589.7445159.99883141.310161.34768104.9761
median2745.3873682.2423234.0763758.6962883.7873568.6183661.5422958.5422974.7753232.4724507.2253311.4173289.752
rank11161229103451387
C17-F24mean2919.0434054.2473450.7014292.7063063.2893876.4233724.8343123.7373178.7893394.5554202.7413407.3583581.48
best2909.0463834.4773350.8333871.6633033.9543797.4693624.7213095.0623097.683323.5994168.7993264.6313542.81
worst2924.4124553.4653616.2465332.1373100.8343995.3233772.583150.7433292.5933450.2834250.1173540.7863671.707
std7.426653365.0322125.0123761.486132.7558798.9749374.0339427.3820689.3890662.5612339.22231133.347265.79617
median2921.3583914.5223417.8623983.5123059.1853856.4493751.0173124.5723162.4423402.1684196.0243412.0073555.702
rank11171321093451268
C17-F25mean2983.1457840.953161.68210,719.343066.5965602.1114003.2283055.2943899.384192.3774109.2343112.7033912.044
best2980.2356532.253139.6058691.3163046.3324634.0323650.7513027.7523729.3283770.2113810.8363074.4453816.771
worst2991.8318671.0913199.22711,966.673084.8326525.3564267.2273072.4924076.0014706.4684679.6793157.6274018.564
std6.3017771031.15528.224141674.20517.3182884.9832285.490221.50476197.6538513.2887445.880245.268790.35902
median2980.2578080.233153.94911109.693067.6115624.5294047.4683060.4663896.0964146.4143973.213109.373906.421
rank11251331182610947
C17-F26mean3776.43212,636.249947.18113,487.23334.79111,373.3212,403.245464.0646090.5268864.46610,440.887481.3488229.115
best3748.80712,413.29479.97312,926.993135.5149523.97211,634.585015.3515727.3798146.69710,144.467017.2386617.009
worst3793.64312,836.5210,373.2914,293.023620.17912,504.613,871.885676.6196416.4089551.37210,765.377950.94710,360.36
std21.16788200.8083397.9168640.6481239.27181402.3291086.993333.8182371.3207636.637278.0636453.96751936.675
median3781.63912,647.639967.72913,364.393291.73611,732.3612,053.255582.1446109.1588879.89710,426.857478.6047969.545
rank21281311011347956
C17-F27mean3251.264604.6833785.0054768.3123381.6364527.1754311.8723363.1233603.313768.0977448.4393608.0474298.472
best3227.7014328.5223742.8784442.583274.9573896.8363813.7523327.5053563.1813613.0847240.1953379.0994201.797
worst3313.6314793.5143853.4795001.7723480.8314957.1934822.333411.3343658.6143915.9717759.3333820.8564436.656
std45.39257226.223557.51471285.347391.87787504.5393511.899140.2877349.36585149.5813273.5143213.321110.8682
median3231.8544648.3483771.8314814.4473385.3784627.3364305.7023356.8263595.7233771.6667397.1133616.1174277.718
rank11171231092461358
C17-F28mean3258.8497995.783559.1810,110.213350.8746721.8974620.5263293.534258.8614989.7894826.5473800.234809.503
best3258.8497261.3773483.4488998.3273314.6565525.714089.3213277.2854020.1324448.4214770.2513521.1684592.939
worst3258.8499864.7233639.69713,054.313395.357951.7654827.5623306.2334558.8615468.2994925.9144249.3674968.115
std01366.64884.939912139.94243.074981334.759386.610214.34867271.1234455.759575.25557342.051196.7871
median3258.8497428.513556.7889194.1033346.7456705.0574782.6093295.3024228.2265021.2184805.0123715.1934838.479
rank11241331172610958
C17-F29mean3263.03812,318.615299.60917,388.784082.1626507.8888359.2794724.9244757.3626192.4177611.64727.7795858.844
best3247.1328329.7785194.7229469.6783730.7646141.6415766.4274358.9214577.5615367.0936357.4574485.4185558.764
worst3278.78716,671.545379.04527,143.864323.3536956.53810,777.955273.7395037.9617042.9069841.3894832.2626413.197
std18.998184176.79684.212848564.455291.6212366.21912246.896423.0455231.1973860.27411716.019177.199432.7455
median3263.11612,136.575312.33416,470.794137.2666466.6878446.3674633.5184706.9626179.8357123.7774796.7185731.708
rank11261329113581047
C17-F30mean623,575.22.8E+0918,892,5294.69E+091,630,6581.42E+091.36E+0860,436,9831.19E+082.57E+081.58E+084,325,48750,145,531
best582,411.62.16E+0911,594,1912.88E+091,237,5981.74E+0891,745,09054,760,52957,828,3331.79E+081.21E+083,159,28440,452,446
worst655,637.43.8E+0925,767,6297.36E+092,647,6122.87E+091.87E+0869,458,2051.77E+083.25E+082.07E+085,901,61670,259,757
std35,550.357.78E+087,624,1472.1E+09741,170.31.51E+0952,122,6076,967,94765,532,62566,719,71539,154,5621,485,46915,004,001
median628,125.92.62E+0919,104,1474.26E+091,318,7101.31E+091.32E+0858,764,5981.21E+082.62E+081.52E+084,120,52444,934,960
rank11241321186710935
Sum rank3033516636763294269112144248254150207
Mean rank1.03448311.551725.72413812.655172.17241410.137939.2758623.8620694.9655178.5517248.7586215.1724147.137931
Total rank11261321110348957
Table 4. Optimization results of CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 100).
Table 4. Optimization results of CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 100).
GAOWSOAVOARSAMPATSAWOAMVOGWOTLBOGSAPSOGA
C17-F1mean1001.42E+113.33E+091.99E+115.05E+081.08E+115.36E+101.18E+084.88E+107.79E+101.16E+111.72E+104.79E+10
best1001.39E+111.64E+091.96E+113.82E+089.48E+105.06E+1093,364,1594.23E+107.41E+101.07E+111.16E+104.54E+10
worst1001.46E+114.78E+092.01E+116.38E+081.2E+116E+101.43E+085.52E+108.58E+101.24E+112.33E+105.42E+10
std1.26E−143.17E+091.4E+092.5E+091.34E+081.15E+104.68E+0922,474,6256.67E+095.86E+098.07E+097.02E+094.56E+09
median1001.42E+113.45E+092E+115E+081.08E+115.19E+101.17E+084.89E+107.58E+101.17E+111.69E+104.61E+10
rank11241331082791156
C17-F3mean300383,842.5297,065.6293,794.9153,298.3328,723.6691,639.7416,132.3332,672.7271,228.7311,511.4479,906.4510,979.9
best300347,055.6291,126.5287,981.8117,347.5262,753.2603,296.5350,527.3302,866254,325.9293,641.2363,707.2486,401.5
worst300404,518.9307,223.7297,843.6185,492.3374,459.6801,936.8493,241.5361,288.5281,529.8337,941.2667,849.7530,908
std028,746.657991.7644536.70132,202.6751,409.1893,079.0177,508.7734,488.7512,808.720,829.9152,845.320,545.72
median300391,897.7294,956.2294,677.1155,176.7338,840.9680,662.7410,380.2333,268.2274,529.5307,231.6444,034.3513,305
rank19542713108361112
C17-F4mean602.172238,110.011463.25364,164.551006.50913,783.029464.142786.29983945.9259294.05229,213.192245.8037984.771
best592.067635,091.621264.19158,182.9897.12369057.498090.444730.4263070.5748855.58523,271.151426.0427539.968
worst612.276941,757.161585.0171,464.691120.17818,294.9310,365.01824.34225875.79510,052.8633,033.642784.5748489.108
std12.69333120.87163.79115990.231117.25724153.9331053.82143.678091411.052614.745126.89636.9998473.8265
median602.172237,795.631501.90663,505.31004.36613,889.839700.557795.21563418.6659133.88230,273.982386.2987955.004
rank11241331092681157
C17-F5mean512.93451822.9581254.8041797.3021180.1491951.641694.0741188.9481144.6111723.3691273.261338.4011479.648
best510.94451810.0321247.7791762.8861058.3211925.8421597.5831106.6211106.3341709.9081229.7861249.811365.867
worst514.92441842.2611264.6021836.0051262.31971.6711817.1291243.3861180.8041733.2311309.721468.7871563.629
std1.97619215.078497.69972133.55469107.052721.56576100.365771.9389933.2640812.2390738.09065109.698394.87956
median512.93451819.7691253.4181795.1581199.9871954.5231680.7931202.8921145.6531725.1681276.7661317.5041494.549
rank11251131394210678
C17-F6mean600692.577655.5795691.1357635.2408696.3684690.4931666.174637.6212671.6821657.3416655.2134656.5741
best600689.8974651.7584686.6009631.618685.6778681.9086660.1273634.2029665.0953654.737648.7785651.1896
worst600695.4305659.2454693.6932641.3751704.1858704.4683670.9605642.4555676.195660.4212659.6686661.1833
std02.5461373.4564393.3864955.0316929.39233210.894935.2094164.0912985.7327512.5614235.862865.595732
median600692.49655.6572692.1244633.9852697.8051687.7977666.804636.9131672.7191657.1041656.2032656.9618
rank11251121310839746
C17-F7mean811.3923249.9032809.1033346.4731780.4793104.9653225.8861917.3931930.2612822.8422843.9512306.9592388.427
best810.02053177.7492668.953271.1341724.7982964.8143121.4381791.091765.3712702.6852727.7122093.382301.084
worst813.17263328.5262917.6153420.5811857.7763239.493366.1322013.4722047.7072918.7883034.4332407.0962565.297
std1.58956567.33718133.342668.6726562.52161135.5128122.8352100.7463129.683497.17736144.9155160.257131.1636
median811.18743246.6692824.9243347.0891769.673107.7783207.9861932.5061953.9822834.9462806.832363.6812343.663
rank11271321011348956
C17-F8mean812.4372212.8811647.3732258.2751393.8362194.032127.6721413.4751464.4182073.6141720.5131621.2731890.868
best808.95462175.4951607.8772244.7761231.5432149.4481940.7521286.8241383.5152020.0331632.3231580.0321828.262
worst816.91432263.4731682.9932272.8561494.6772267.222267.9291577.5541581.4952124.6011829.5831712.8711934.221
std3.69711647.3237536.8826713.67073125.623359.80833175.3943131.2531104.971646.4702892.5654666.977850.5737
median811.93952206.2781649.312257.7351424.5622179.7262151.0041394.7621446.3312074.9111710.0721596.0951900.494
rank11261321110349758
C17-F9mean90076,816.8224,403.0166,222.0821,063.39101,805.165,821.3251,366.6332,197.663,893.9421,998.2629,657.4640,458.63
best90068,900.4220,792.763,921.6519,605.3683,970.7251,834.9843,765.5320,725.6161,124.620,701.1225,525.0936,964.91
worst90088,390.7227,225.268,008.1921,723.38126,398.682,335.2658,117.9142,909.4165,321.4123,120.0532,788.1745,299.31
std1.01E−139140.3892905.491940.6781065.9119,383.0216,524.16435.12411,756.312089.6741106.0243542.9983839.177
median90074,988.0624,797.0766,479.2321,462.4198,425.4564,557.5151,791.5432,577.6864,564.8822,085.9430,158.2839,785.15
rank11241121310869357
C17-F10mean11,023.0427,349.2615,441.0128,451.9813,705.2226,592.8625,727.0916,289.9814,793.9428,460.0116,484.3616,357.7323,872.49
best9625.60827,025.5713,346.6427,628.213,035.6726,097.5725,018.5415,674.0213,811.7227,371.8114,979.8714,952.5623,395.55
worst11,858.8127,711.4217,262.3828,960.5914,519.3327,297.1127,009.2516,804.0715,206.4229,371.2217,274.5617,391.9724,443.19
std1054.018322.39191881.722649.5138681.7138609.0236998.3499535.963720.7513899.07581173.5831109.584473.1087
median11,303.8727,330.0415,577.528,609.5613,632.9326,488.3925,440.2816,340.9115,078.8128,548.516,841.516,543.1923,825.61
rank11141221095313768
C17-F11mean1162.329138,171.354,218.15173,245.64617.21755,259.59174,8534448.06973,503.3860,611.45145,056.944,126.05117,068.8
best1139.568107,408.848,816.74132,721.43646.10625,475.78101,876.73991.36861,195.9351,182.33121,014.720,433.8189,442.4
worst1220.662160,596.264,555.37246,485.95510.85878,913.32281,535.54786.81382,633.1377,155.18169,243.889,549.74161,296.6
std42.46,66324,880.27905.57255,743.48873.247824,092.5890,902.06361.176810,009.5512,382.2421,675.8633,640.0434,264.38
median1144.542142,340.151,750.24156,887.54655.95258,324.63157,999.94507.04775,092.2357,054.15144,984.633,260.32108,768.1
rank11051236132871149
C17-F12mean5974.8058.83E+105.81E+081.44E+112.48E+084.76E+101.11E+103.08E+089.6E+091.84E+105.59E+108.47E+091.04E+10
best5383.9056.27E+103.09E+081.07E+111.39E+082.44E+108.99E+092.11E+086.66E+091.44E+104.85E+101.13E+099.44E+09
worst6570.1999.84E+109.16E+081.67E+112.98E+087.89E+101.26E+104.73E+081.14E+102.53E+106.58E+101.61E+101.22E+10
std537.93171.86E+102.83E+082.96E+1080,251,6972.48E+101.67E+091.29E+082.23E+095.4E+097.83E+097.41E+091.38E+09
median5972.5599.6E+105.49E+081.5E+112.79E+084.35E+101.13E+102.75E+081.02E+101.69E+105.47E+108.34E+099.87E+09
rank11241321083691157
C17-F13mean1407.282.33E+1093,518.053.57E+1092,388.841.79E+104.38E+08307,656.47.93E+082.36E+097.31E+091.48E+091.46E+08
best1371.1452.03E+1062,963.22.76E+1039,601.011.27E+103.11E+08268,601.768,370,4981.63E+094.49E+091.63E+081.15E+08
worst1439.9352.58E+10119,5474.05E+10229,396.82.14E+105.92E+08373,502.22.1E+092.85E+099.38E+092.67E+091.76E+08
std37.804333.15E+0925,701.386.46E+0999,954.784.01E+091.57E+0850,861.931.02E+096.06E+082.23E+091.34E+0934,572,729
median1409.022.35E+1095,780.993.74E+1050,278.771.87E+104.24E+08294,260.85.03E+082.47E+097.68E+091.54E+091.47E+08
rank11231321164791085
C17-F14mean1467.50938,082,5405,605,59866,800,41586,803.327,468,56212,208,8202,554,1578,074,15311,671,5259,650,213693,949.68,816,297
best1458.80332,883,8533,415,35360,921,09724,818.953,392,8747,027,213779,198.25,111,9018,699,6947,452,511330,058.54,938,542
worst1472.73343,502,8749,299,51573,125,403184,373.414,562,84716,677,4763,504,23012,091,52514,923,98914,459,9221,441,31612,994,340
std6.5767395,070,7252,823,1556,372,14177,728.845,353,7854,317,0501,323,0883,325,7053,539,2403,527,329550,201.63,648,073
median1469.2537,971,7174,853,76266,577,58169,010.465,959,26412,565,2952,966,6007,546,59311,531,2088,344,210502,212.28,666,153
rank11251326114710938
C17-F15mean1609.8931.29E+1077,286.651.97E+1053,518.191.01E+1058,778,711112,631.24.2E+089.99E+081.04E+092.8E+0810,645,222
best1551.1541.19E+1066,065.031.41E+1015,481.082.1E+0832,741,20074,503.8327,578,6283.34E+084.17E+0859,310.676,867,523
worst1652.2941.45E+1090,717.932.46E+1081,241.611.89E+101.13E+08162,708.21.26E+092.13E+091.33E+091.1E+0918,137,162
std48.043521.22E+0913,326.25.67E+0930,201.728.84E+0939,831,19141,080.696.2E+088.58E+084.6E+085.98E+085,569,986
median1618.0631.26E+1076,181.822.01E+1058,675.041.06E+1044,721,842106,656.41.97E+087.65E+081.21E+097,243,6568,788,101
rank11231321164891075
C17-F16mean2711.79516,653.336752.87719,761.535402.92912,984.3314,386.346302.2975887.33810,410.1910,042.596208.3939611.617
best2171.6915,547.125757.30815,679.725307.98710,829.4311,844.455656.2175400.7089952.7538810.7875969.7558736.575
worst3397.32617,141.747390.03222,016.025537.67915,421.1215,871.816741.1286461.29311,325.0211,504.136395.27210,309.06
std554.7769808.8727770.38753124.823107.49542051.4451956.809519.8196601.7643695.86431314.398191.9232776.5046
median2639.08116,962.246932.08420,675.185383.02412,843.3914,914.566405.9215843.67610,181.59927.7216234.2719700.415
rank11261321011539847
C17-F17mean2716.5643,542,2325563.7246,967,9454559.569184,224.214,958.364828.5865278.9377997.7739,614.155776.2216664.501
best2275.0211,038,5835357.8511,889,1364342.9339201.7279460.8834476.8714357.0637878.39426,201.785529.4646522.225
worst3429.1278,058,3575938.05916,032,6374772.105488,362.924,891.015113.0166672.6568154.27164,020.85959.8696842.104
std559.66693,599,997285.0667,238,974230.5594227,763.77565.855354.75621118.696137.239418,218.35204.2189146.0004
median2581.0542,535,9935479.4924,975,0044561.62119,666.112,740.774862.2295043.0157979.20834,117.015807.7766646.838
rank11251321193481067
C17-F18mean1903.74649,047,5832,391,30586,532,758221,89412,535,99310,102,0314,147,2669,226,88713,629,2419,895,3805,430,2895,095,315
best1881.1522,229,5841,194,86833,597,693154,720.54,704,2577,515,2953,100,0942,945,82110,042,3284,568,7633,356,1674,082,969
worst1919.92188,697,6783,786,7281.58E+08399,841.525,610,54211,954,1446,942,44614,885,57019,248,18021,987,1537,805,7837,356,158
std21.0824430,890,6711,275,14957,152,959129,457.610,248,0952,197,6562,034,4925,343,8714,298,2178,932,9132,242,1281,673,052
median1906.95542,631,5362,291,81277,153,607166,5079,914,58810,469,3423,273,2619,538,07812,613,2296,512,8025,279,6034,471,066
rank11231321094711865
C17-F19mean1972.8391.07E+102,450,3871.88E+10267,8604.24E+091.13E+0814,008,3153.03E+085.62E+081.33E+092.26E+0810,782,637
best1967.1399.42E+09980,922.21.37E+1056,413.891.88E+0944,711,3568,206,6462,441,6252.44E+082.39E+0837,668,3675,494,722
worst1977.8691.26E+104,488,7402.34E+10453,682.78.42E+091.9E+0822,221,0079.11E+081.29E+092.5E+094.9E+0819,497,003
std4.9355851.55E+091,615,7194.34E+09179,384.63.15E+0973,083,3327,532,4104.61E+085.36E+081.23E+092.38E+086,754,581
median1973.1741.04E+102,165,9441.9E+10280,671.73.33E+091.08E+0812,802,8031.49E+083.56E+081.28E+091.89E+089,069,411
rank11231321165891074
C17-F20mean3192.046799.8925863.7467013.3924445.7936582.156592.7555556.3995777.9296765.2525985.8665185.775944.842
best2806.7626627.065556.2576904.6664389.3026043.636217.5045281.3534719.9436071.3295603.8564568.5525417.463
worst3662.1216958.3256114.1657084.4074506.9797242.0686913.1796021.0086553.5997070.1926214.7635924.8896361.49
std477.9749150.8324284.324983.2866955.23384559.0573333.4967349.4198984.7558507.6215295.3101631.4043486.8695
median3149.6396807.0925892.2817032.2484443.4456521.4526620.1685461.6175919.0886959.7446062.4245124.826000.208
rank11261329104511837
C17-F21mean2342.1554030.8913510.9614134.8712811.3333892.343978.7653150.5532931.2573545.4694389.6443439.9373302.062
best2338.6893985.9663336.0564069.3522768.2683771.8663719.4343096.122863.3533408.4013921.9563284.8613273.431
worst2346.0154094.7673627.2674177.7622844.9763978.864179.2263262.7622976.5343695.2424761.8583740.0553339.036
std3.66491254.72408136.725552.0929735.38474110.7836222.925683.381752.53036132.5194381.2425225.229230.25229
median2341.9594021.4153540.2614146.1862816.0443909.3174008.23121.6662942.573539.1174437.3813367.4153297.891
rank11171229104381365
C17-F22mean11,73929,370.5219,711.1230,768.1718,401.0528,523.6727,146.6617,214.5422,298.5530,664.8720,471.5621,114.0426,861.63
best11,119.0828,683.1318,482.8130,313.7217,099.5727,540.6925,876.7316,180.5918,097.3829,834.7319,786.4419,847.4326,175.5
worst12,601.629,715.6221,309.9331,235.7320,018.3929,310.1128,022.8617,998.2131,748.2631,044.7220,799.0522,659.8827,485.86
std710.0872506.58251319.333474.82961339.001797.87821024.07902.64086997.36620.0927504.55121302.337667.1921
median11,617.6729,541.6519,525.8630,761.6118,243.1128,621.9427,343.5217,339.6719,674.2830,890.0220,650.3720,974.4426,892.59
rank11141331092712568
C17-F23mean2877.6975006.2713970.6195008.1053281.8045108.5754848.2283440.5363553.9654056.1887171.5384611.6574100.543
best2872.1074790.6323900.7754778.4953266.4434459.0544729.5843361.2693525.4244009.7276660.734165.7894042.702
worst2884.0135261.754047.1155186.9273312.2065991.4684970.5773545.6963592.2854122.3327535.1234845.7154155.234
std5.674312228.955374.83691184.203122.41464745.7664125.83285.1236232.1658452.00293429.2467334.167764.93272
median2877.3344986.353967.2935033.4993274.2834991.8894846.3753427.593549.0764046.3467245.1494717.5624102.117
rank11051121293461387
C17-F24mean3327.4077801.6815114.6959482.0383703.9646220.6465972.3393919.0744196.7354586.6819749.7775615.495117.215
best3295.5186191.2784921.3536514.4653656.9645795.5495613.8363854.9293986.734394.0079185.9545302.0445033.637
worst3357.9918900.025273.6911,456.623768.1866501.7116529.4554016.9054376.1274779.76911,221.456027.5955258.358
std32.223231409.723167.77382604.44457.64469327.8437435.248779.57128220.1476172.5361068.987354.1205108.0711
median3328.0598057.7125131.8689978.5363695.3546292.6625873.0323902.2324212.0424586.4749295.8545566.1615088.433
rank11161221093451387
C17-F25mean3185.23213,529.954057.36218,688.733670.929451.0076751.4143434.6236009.0928117.1869926.0014058.2677249.185
best3137.37112,891.383736.2717,378.73498.8568870.3066222.7593357.9475886.4757042.6559174.1593815.2996642.467
worst3261.57115,038.014340.98621,648.263792.4649824.8847059.5723496.6586333.989539.19211,233.84427.6947851.922
std65.171611103.36271.72652191134.2336469.9241415.362362.94,321236.58141237.829986.7667318.7455685.3193
median3170.99213,095.214076.09617,863.993696.189554.4196861.6633441.9445907.9587943.4489648.0213995.0387251.174
rank11241331072691158
C17-F26mean5757.62135,167.7222,517.6540,224.6111,453.129,897.330,431.1511,630.8315,907.2721,863.9830,347.819,176.121,128.3
best5645.90534,635.4420,138.2337,982.6210,749.8228,911.3427,353.6410,406.3814,350.8418,216.5129,245.5617,272.1219,652.66
worst5844.64235,653.4724,926.941,621.0212,187.3930,511.5433,052.2913,730.9217,185.3926,505.7131,963.8720,940.2622,125.46
std91.29453453.09542255.4331857.913771.9566759.81273004.5291575.8441323.7153737.7381264.7991698.2891169.621
median5769.96935,190.9922,502.7340,647.3911,437.5930,083.1730,659.3411,19316,046.4221,366.8630,090.8819,246.0121,367.54
rank11281329113471056
C17-F27mean3309.4938472.4624065.70110,998.583528.7026150.2185640.5253605.3393996.6884207.60312,507.413990.1725196.33
best3278.017203.4993921.0958352.9043490.2615886.7395039.3783571.8953854.1573968.79812,213.883815.1764971.8
worst3344.59747.0334311.36213,743.243561.7246472.0846305.1273689.0854107.0924605.0812,737.124166.6445535.875
std30.857541501.857184.58493159.14832.00686274.7479745.861961.13918136.8499308.7915258.9872207.5626262.3963
median3307.7328469.6594015.17310,949.093531.4126121.0265608.7993580.1884012.7514128.26612,539.323989.4345138.822
rank11161221093571348
C17-F28mean3322.24218,389.384558.6124,650.683759.30413,947.479399.0173492.4148456.17910,080.8516,594.617067.78610,348.93
best3318.74217,167.174302.08222,119.533638.04911,064.528088.893423.2277249.8387994.17314,371.54945.5029470.138
worst3327.81620,674.354735.22827,803.323845.86316,143.3710,248.763564.1310,195.4711,924.718,271.0210,653.5111,327.38
std4.7671251741.216202.53092590.90295.074242644.4811002.04162.679041354.1761990.0431774.3852826.3631074.312
median3321.20517,858.014598.56424,339.943776.65314,290.999629.2113491.1498189.70210,202.2716,867.966336.06910,299.1
rank11241331072681159
C17-F29mean4450.696157,317.89139.852298,621.56805.14116,662.415,041.718338.5928016.54611,529.0322,196.278307.76411,023.77
best4169.15190,006.738041.684160,652.46002.79513,000.4212,596.717548.8717769.15810,697.5518,567.747738.82710,779.1
worst4829.521214,340.39695.661414,215.67560.20120,865.2517,104.728887.5138277.73912,142.528,742.048977.92411,517.96
std307.156957,574.73814.4624117,534.7693.98893584.8292382.752617.3333242.3973662.09455174.887661.4283366.7167
median4402.056162,462.19411.032309,8096828.78316,391.9715,232.78458.9928009.64311,638.0420,737.648257.15310,899.02
rank11261321095381147
C17-F30mean5407.1661.97E+1024,130,0693.21E+104,546,1851.14E+101.28E+0988,083,4401.56E+093.22E+096.25E+095.15E+085.67E+08
best5337.481.73E+1013,795,2073E+102,025,8826.93E+091.05E+0954,762,9216.42E+081.21E+094.46E+091.26E+084.73E+08
worst5557.1552.14E+1041,706,0153.47E+107,423,3741.41E+101.73E+091.08E+082.04E+095.97E+097.57E+091.59E+096.07E+08
std110.04771.89E+0913,513,0442.21E+092,713,6593.42E+093.35E+0825,767,5896.85E+082.6E+091.43E+097.84E+0868,320,415
median5367.0142.01E+1020,509,5273.18E+104,367,7421.23E+101.17E+0994,878,0861.78E+092.85E+096.49E+091.7E+085.93E+08
rank11231321174891056
Sum rank2933614035565293265114156249272162203
Mean rank111.586214.82758612.241382.24137910.103459.1379313.9310345.379318.5862079.379315.5862077
Total rank11241321193581067
Table 5. Wilcoxon rank sum test results.
Table 5. Wilcoxon rank sum test results.
Compared AlgorithmObjective Function Type
CEC 2017
D = 10D = 30D = 50D = 100
GAO vs. WSO2.58E−342.58E−342.58E−342.58E−34
GAO vs. AVOA3.03E−254.23E−212.58E−342.58E−34
GAO vs. RSA2.58E−342.58E−342.58E−342.58E−34
GAO vs. MPA1.61E−295.26E−168.68E−312.58E−34
GAO vs. TSA7.63E−342.58E−342.58E−342.58E−34
GAO vs. WOA7.63E−342.58E−342.58E−342.58E−34
GAO vs. MVO6.08E−267.11E−212.58E−342.58E−34
GAO vs. GWO8.19E−322.58E−342.58E−342.58E−34
GAO vs. TLBO2.97E−322.58E−342.58E−342.58E−34
GAO vs. GSA1.29E−276.21E−212.58E−342.58E−34
GAO vs. PSO6.24E−281.89E−212.58E−342.58E−34
GAO vs. GA5.17E−282.58E−342.58E−342.58E−34
Table 6. Optimization results of the CEC 2011 test suite.
Table 6. Optimization results of the CEC 2011 test suite.
GAOWSOAVOARSAMPATSAWOAMVOGWOTLBOGSAPSOGA
C11-F1mean5.92010316.7464112.4793520.606997.61327317.4063512.7425913.4222910.5871417.4351720.3552616.9901321.88339
best2E−1013.865018.47870718.184570.38098716.505847.45192611.388981.05014716.6426317.7122610.1425820.69375
worst12.3060619.645316.3700723.2154712.6953819.0523616.7742215.4848416.3855118.6953322.119423.1634924.33594
std7.4765383.0588944.9067222.6110966.1613671.2644554.7342192.4063337.2783181.0633212.0519996.2776941.854985
median5.68717616.7376612.5343220.513968.68836217.0335913.3721113.4076812.4564517.2013720.7946817.3272221.25194
rank17412295631011813
C11-F2mean−26.3179−15.5172−21.4594−13.0022−25.0711−12.7516−19.2977−10.5326−22.8812−12.4007−16.5475−22.9249−14.2156
best−27.0676−16.7338−22.0088−13.416−25.7089−16.1048−22.3643−12.4163−24.773−13.5327−21.127−24.2021−16.3132
worst−25.4328−14.5198−20.8937−12.6713−23.7335−10.8719−15.8013−9.00571−19.5197−11.4832−12.7537−20.8714−12.7783
std0.7677031.1913980.5611610.4130331.0057042.6899333.6367911.6018662.5518530.956834.120061.5669691.883805
median−26.3856−15.4077−21.4675−12.9608−25.421−12.0149−19.5127−10.3543−23.616−12.2934−16.1546−23.313−13.8855
rank18510211613412739
C11-F4mean1.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−05
best1.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−05
worst1.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−05
std2.08E−192.03E−112.33E−094.57E−111.3E−152.17E−141.58E−169.12E−133.57E−157.19E−141.58E−161.58E−161.58E−16
median1.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−051.15E−05
rank11113126841079325
C11-F4mean0000000000000
best0000000000000
worst0000000000000
std0000000000000
median0000000000000
rank1111111111111
C11-F5mean−34.1274−25.7765−28.7022−21.4775−33.271−27.837−28.2791−27.7131−31.7667−13.3239−28.0292−11.4033−12.1662
best−34.7494−26.8331−29.7227−23.4213−33.8557−31.7971−28.4609−31.7451−34.1148−15.2637−31.5688−14.3978−13.2792
worst−33.3862−24.7915−28.1294−19.226−31.9367−23.1816−27.9722−25.5891−28.0378−11.9458−25.2806−9.92524−10.7534
std0.6129580.9506950.771942.389080.9773883.8700350.2506423.1424912.8497281.5412043.0115292.2958611.2422
median−34.1871−25.7407−28.4783−21.6314−33.6458−28.1847−28.3416−26.7591−32.4571−13.043−27.6336−10.6451−12.3162
rank19410275831161312
C11-F6mean−24.1119−15.0062−19.4362−14.1244−22.6084−9.25983−20.2537−11.008−19.9677−4.61236−21.9655−5.38056−6.18492
best−27.4298−15.3693−21.0438−14.6552−25.7439−17.0765−22.8753−17.9544−22.7828−5.25001−25.9902−8.32281−10.6604
worst−23.0059−14.6561−17.7919−13.074−21.3201−6.21322−13.9021−4.37018−18.359−4.37018−18.7012−4.37018−4.37018
std2.4154630.3627661.5759890.7801642.3133545.7236764.6715897.8535132.2960560.4664723.4844282.1424923.286726
median−23.0059−14.9997−19.4545−14.3841−21.6849−6.87477−22.1187−10.8537−19.3646−4.41462−21.5854−4.41462−4.85453
rank17682104951331211
C11-F7mean0.8606991.5258651.2421411.8023710.9298651.2578621.6470660.8870711.0513491.6250961.0619671.1006681.644276
best0.5822661.4518871.1129421.5987640.7578691.0851561.5525180.8407350.8310431.4660680.869850.8535821.279595
worst1.0250271.6255841.3764891.9685871.0115821.5887031.8025210.9605731.2585121.7530671.2468121.3220561.83421
std0.2197370.0809740.1555930.1665590.1279170.2458270.1179040.0617520.1908990.1399330.1850540.2577580.274052
median0.917751.5129941.2395671.8210660.9750051.1787951.6166130.8734881.0579211.6406261.0656021.1135171.731649
rank19713381224105611
C11-F8mean220277.756238.4052313.4897222.463253.2859261.0367223.905226.789223.905243.6012440.9517222.5031
best220254.6314223.8045277.5593220220242.3511220220220220245.4346220
worst220308.7868253.606352.6647224.926339.5656302.0734234.4201233.5781235.0201285.4904530.1433229.4123
std025.9625714.0097433.665473.10576363.200530.125587.6613238.5606888.09781133.93451146.97725.039474
median220273.8029238.1052311.8675222.463226.789249.8612220.6226.789220.3234.4572494.1144220.3
rank1106112894547123
C11-F9mean8789.286495,628.6337,304.8942,375.520,289.6661,028.87334,059.8120,463.140,488.79364,116.3731,137.6960,487.91,721,875
best5457.674332,586299,628.8616,714.211,047.4145,559.44184,837.168,871.6117,607.44301,247626,497.6770,332.11,650,717
worst14,042.29570,171.3361,7871,106,23528,881.9376,423.83563,855.9181,648.170,024.01466,965.3785,786.61,176,3871,822,159
std4040.59121,883.429,840.72241,894.98616.99114,638188,476.850,889.2124,188.0679,408.1677,704.14237,012.591,820.42
median7828.591539,878.5343,901.71,023,27720,614.6661,066.11293,773.2115,666.337,161.85344,126.5756,133.1947,616.31,707,313
rank19711246538101213
C11-F10mean−21.4889−14.5416−17.1501−13.0457−19.0113−14.9125−13.5714−15.1881−14.6597−12.1691−13.8193−12.2573−11.996
best−21.8299−15.5735−17.3545−13.4342−19.4012−18.8263−14.1193−20.9515−15.1354−12.2888−14.3188−12.3375−12.0839
worst−20.7878−14.0389−16.7705−12.8424−18.6173−12.8716−13.1807−12.2848−13.5969−12.0396−13.0951−12.1735−11.8831
std0.5180280.7644940.2972950.2972320.437582.9322370.4301964.2645940.79050.1266080.6578590.0804220.094638
median−21.669−14.277−17.2377−12.9532−19.0134−13.976−13.4928−13.7581−14.9532−12.1739−13.9316−12.2591−12.0085
rank17310259461281113
C11-F11mean571,712.35,328,958 1,075,534 8,031,4601,666,0155,454,8291,273,865 1,355,9763,588,0354,805,1071,446,9114,814,899 5,612,143
best260,837.95,076,905873,531.3 7,760,8481,551,4694,560,6141,162,788748,605.83,403,9374,770,6081,304,0774,785,378 5,565,110
worst828,560.95,661,6581,250,006 8,214,1681,800,1236,560,3191,431,883 2,601,6293,895,6134,841,2401,610,2164,842,787 5,662,076
std271,080298,039180,691.1209,754.4130,844.8901,463.8125,636.6918,912.5233,27635,734.2137,640.734,263.6445,115.52
median598,725.25,288,634 1,089,299 8,075,4121,656,234 5,349,1911,250,395 1,036,835 3,526,294 4,804,2901,436,677 4,815,717 5,610,694
rank11021361134785912
C11-F12mean1,199,8057,565,0013,131,98411,847,4071,275,0354,593,9585,288,0691,321,7801,407,16812,813,4815,265,8262,193,62412,955,713
best1,155,9377,249,4573,037,65511,005,8191,199,0424,365,1384,921,5501,191,1661,253,03212,079,0575,013,4962,052,64112,839,240
worst1,249,3537,846,5723,201,40612,588,9561,354,4364,711,7935,463,4301,445,4921,539,00313,381,1345,440,4402,374,36513,075,086
std48,993.46269,902.477,934.33709,107.474,270.29176,865.1274,490.1114,079129,661.2596,428.5201,014.3145,668.3105,930.4
median1,196,9657,581,9873,144,43711,897,4261,273,3314,649,4515,383,6481,325,2311,418,31812,896,8665,304,6842,173,74512,954,263
rank11061127934128513
C11-F13mean15,444.215,812.1915,449.8816,212.5715,463.315,487.215,527.2515,502.8615,496.8615,879.01115,295.815,487.7728,322.83
best15,444.1915,647.8415,448.9715,844.3315,460.9815,478.1515,489.115,485.4615,490.4515,608.3783,844.3915,472.2515,460.73
worst15,444.2116,210.1415,450.5817,127.4915,467.3215,498.3315,579.1715,536.7415,507.9416,377.02157,954.915,520.5666,597.52
std0.009445292.54050.736869671.56273.07085810.6675345.9271226.085558.466667379.753436,436.5424.1356827,864.62
median15,444.215,695.3815,449.9915,939.2315,462.4615,486.1715,520.3715,494.6315,494.5215,765.32109,691.915,479.1315,616.53
rank19211348761013512
C11-F14mean18,295.35101,653.818,531.86204,818.718,610.0819,427.0519,156.7219,328.0319,162.86277,104.219,039.0519,067.8519,056.56
best18,241.5877,844.3318,433.29151,402.618,525.0919,197.3919,010.3419,228.2719,023.0428,919.6618,780.8118,920.418,802.38
worst18,388.08141,318.618,627.71294,218.218,686.2619,915.9819,266.5319,403.5319,330.36532,86719,214.6419,206.2119,324.98
std74.3867931,002.63100.413269,857.1475.5763359.6829130.226582.13068148.4293264,198.4207.9666127.972233.6991
median18,275.8793,726.1418,533.22186,827.118,614.4819,297.419,17519,340.1519,149.02273,315.119,080.3719,072.419,049.45
rank11121231079813465
C11-F15mean32,883.58807,662.799,246.561,698,85332,948.8652,073.78197,302.833,083.133,063.5113,654,593269,150.933,249.557,029,271
best32,782.17335,111.342,006.57712,650.232,870.5533,044.8632,994.0532,999.4533,025.792,864,102238,633.633,238.563,201,535
worst32,956.462,025,189163,300.44,428,55733,019.16108,933.8280,775.533,136.0633,129.2820,360,257290,038.333,267.8512,044,118
std79.94256889,583.971,193.561,990,35366.476341,394.96122,156.865.4757851.661628,687,56826,115.3914.218844,427,529
median32,897.86435,175.295,839.63827,102.232,952.8733,158.25237,720.833,098.4533,049.4815,697,006273,965.933,245.96,435,715
rank11071126843139512
C11-F16mean133,550852,515.9135,494.41,741,395137,689.9144,300.8141,678.2141,363.5144,961.178,713,31016,589,46970,453,79567,648,001
best131,374.2271,555.2133,906.1435,162.3135,606.9141,665.4136,481.6133,721.9142,697.576,704,2718,433,55858,281,36754,676,847
worst136,310.81,992,858136,234.84,304,701141,382.2145,887.3146,823.4148,906.5150,289.680,979,12030,001,09284,187,61186,522,477
std2485.329845,493.31168.7481,900,5102815.2122202.3664704.0486908.0983912.7391,956,38210,183,91912,193,90214,772,336
median133,257.5572,825.3135,918.41,112,859136,885.2144,825.3141,703.9141,412.9143,428.778,584,92513,961,61369,673,10164,696,339
rank18293654713101211
C11-F17mean1,926,6157.93E+092.05E+091.37E+102,293,8611.13E+098.58E+093,020,7652,938,8881.98E+109.93E+091.84E+101.94E+10
best1,916,9536.76E+091.86E+099.87E+091,957,6759.36E+086.12E+092,291,6102,029,2001.9E+108.73E+091.63E+101.81E+10
worst1,942,6858.8E+092.24E+091.68E+102,915,0591.3E+091.14E+103,551,6524,662,2072.06E+101.05E+102.13E+102.19E+10
std12,470.839.84E+081.83E+083.25E+09468,908.42.03E+082.43E+09620,050.31,295,0607.28E+088.83E+082.49E+091.87E+09
median1,923,4128.09E+092.05E+091.41E+102,151,3561.15E+098.4E+093,119,9002,532,0731.97E+101.02E+101.81E+101.87E+10
rank17610258431391112
C11-F18mean942,057.548,788,5955,915,0001.05E+08971,984.91,926,6618,592,280986,474.21,024,54927,556,5749,963,0621.2E+081.02E+08
best938,416.233,587,2803,598,58472,496,984949,866.21,696,4413,757,481972,178.6965,175.121,861,7817,461,4691E+0897,794,840
worst944,706.955,479,31010,072,3371.2E+081,030,6742,227,41715,006,887993,724.51,181,66629,806,86812,546,2381.33E+081.05E+08
std2882.13811,196,1973,292,14324,174,06342,861.31277,004.95,187,56910,717.17114,623.84,163,2812,480,17615,806,3213,328,144
median942,553.553,043,8944,994,5391.14E+08953,699.61,891,3927,802,376989,996.7975,677.329,278,8249,922,2701.23E+081.02E+08
rank11061225734981311
C11-F19mean1,025,34148,045,4296,024,3301.03E+081,138,7312,312,2399,177,4971,438,6961,337,88831,640,1665,679,7881.53E+081.02E+08
best967,927.741,007,0575,529,03588,789,5451,068,5402,091,8311,949,2361,124,6201,214,01422,188,4802,262,6151.39E+0899,335,591
worst1,167,14261,046,6937,266,0481.29E+081,293,9092,700,25516,514,2311,862,1401,516,56039,430,5217,413,2401.77E+081.05E+08
std103,555.59,868,988909,126.920,540,250114,017.5291,364.97,492,785336,266.6139,372.18,153,3432,551,79518,022,4512,504,883
median983,146.645,063,9835,651,11996,595,8371,096,2372,228,4359,123,2611,384,0121,310,48932,470,8326,521,6481.48E+081.02E+08
rank11071225843961311
C11-F20mean941,250.451,056,3645,326,8621.11E+08960,500.61,727,3306,556,181971,537.3994,311.430,716,41812,744,2161.41E+081.02E+08
best936,143.244,933,1804,709,95097,107,724957,168.31,564,5656,183,561962,742.4975,262.130,044,7958,502,4431.29E+0897,262,940
worst946,866.660,440,4625,986,8831.32E+08962,6081,997,6077,053,710981,674.91,009,09031,442,40219,667,2371.53E+081.06E+08
std5208.7337,215,894578,753.316,195,0922558.588224,547406,329.49206.80115,914.84634,789.95,328,26914,753,4023,998,704
median940,995.949,425,9075,305,3071.07E+08961,1131,673,5746,493,726970,866996,446.530,689,23811,403,5931.41E+081.03E+08
rank11061225734981311
C11-F21mean12.7144346.3468621.0172369.5640115.9624928.2627536.2031626.237321.6673591.0191837.8956895.4779592.70667
best9.97420638.7314319.5782552.4943413.7898525.1366233.5427323.4390519.9290544.7877133.8368282.9020854.02514
worst14.9749954.5412222.8987486.6323318.2523429.5312639.591429.1872224.00863133.050140.61476105.7638112.5417
std2.5065947.4258141.55818216.451182.2639242.290022.9124693.4132292.01494139.497533.25703912.4617429.75296
median12.9542546.057420.7959769.564715.9038829.1915635.8392626.1614721.3658593.1194638.5655896.62294102.1299
rank19310267541181312
C11-F22mean5.92010316.7464112.4793520.606997.61327317.4063512.7425913.4222910.5871417.4351720.3552616.9901321.88339
best2E−1013.865018.47870718.184570.38098716.505847.45192611.388981.05014716.6426317.7122610.1425820.69375
worst12.3060619.645316.3700723.2154712.6953819.0523616.7742215.4848416.3855118.6953322.119423.1634924.33594
std7.4765383.0588944.9067222.6110966.1613671.2644554.7342192.4063337.2783181.0633212.0519996.2776941.854985
median5.68717616.7376612.5343220.513968.68836217.0335913.3721113.4076812.4564517.2013720.7946817.3272221.25194
rank17412295631011813
Sum rank221911092315514614511897222157198224
Mean rank18.6818184.95454510.52.56.6363646.5909095.3636364.40909110.090917.136364910.18182
Total rank12124133119671058
Wilcoxon: p-value1.58E−159.00E−151.58E−156.54E−153.37E−151.58E−153.68E−126.54E−154.94E−157.85E−152.34E−154.94E−15
Table 7. Performance of optimization algorithms on pressure vessel design problem.
Table 7. Performance of optimization algorithms on pressure vessel design problem.
AlgorithmOptimum VariablesOptimum Cost
TsThRL
GAO0.77802710.384579240.3122842005882.8955
WSO0.77802690.384579740.3122822005882.9013
AVOA0.77803080.38458140.312476199.997325882.9077
RSA1.19501570.6403860.54932148.0319847759.8234
MPA0.77802710.384579240.3122842005882.9013
TSA0.77949940.38581940.3865172005909.3749
WOA0.9115170.451072346.230782133.839416270.8621
MVO0.83442670.416405243.217775163.906796003.8497
GWO0.77845990.385812740.320627199.964425890.2105
TLBO1.56225930.481302447.695987124.6482310,807.366
GSA1.13001271.157634944.110061190.787611,984.417
PSO1.550060.623124963.13948349.784959998.6395
GA1.4064170.783276258.25336873.96447810,920.286
Table 8. Statistical results of optimization algorithms on pressure vessel design problem.
Table 8. Statistical results of optimization algorithms on pressure vessel design problem.
AlgorithmMeanBestWorstStdMedianRank
GAO5882.89555882.89555882.89551.87E−125882.89551
WSO5891.2265882.90135965.036522.2189325882.90173
AVOA6219.53865882.90777046.3206352.358486047.69555
RSA12,409.5867759.823419,991.7693127.06511,403.3389
MPA5882.90135882.90135882.90133.68E−065882.90132
TSA6271.1325909.37496948.3792333.15846143.61536
WOA7998.63726270.862112,805.3881681.89747579.63338
MVO6518.10196003.84977050.4059320.318986572.197
GWO6012.36755890.21056670.9945239.385495898.54944
TLBO28,273.33410,807.36660,311.6413,795.6524,975.49112
GSA20,643.58911,984.41732,105.4456711.667519,830.39410
PSO29,687.5759998.639550,712.30712,915.31832,709.33913
GA25,427.76610,920.28645,530.92210,828.81522,551.25511
Table 9. Performance of optimization algorithms on speed reducer design problem.
Table 9. Performance of optimization algorithms on speed reducer design problem.
AlgorithmOptimum VariablesOptimum Cost
bMpl1l2d1d2
GAO3.50.7177.37.83.35021475.28668322996.3482
WSO3.50000040.7177.30000877.80000043.35021485.28668332996.3483
AVOA3.50.7177.30000077.83.35021475.28668322996.3482
RSA3.58120090.7178.11200928.20600463.35501515.45989843160.6387
MPA3.50.7177.37.83.35021475.28668322996.3482
TSA3.51136340.7177.38.20600463.35050185.28979573011.7899
WOA3.57706180.7177.37.98441813.36025525.28674713033.2634
MVO3.50198380.7177.38.03702413.36728815.28685823006.8197
GWO3.50056490.7177.30453117.83.36231315.28855693000.8991
TLBO3.5494210.703521625.2140858.00600438.10412013.62615765.33308914999.6584
GSA3.52018350.702425617.3252137.75858477.87894613.40180635.3741243149.0914
PSO3.50720990.700063417.9652697.38725237.85993453.5662675.33720013266.1003
GA3.56873020.704903117.7169757.68991317.84919853.659755.33923513305.1452
Table 10. Statistical results of optimization algorithms on speed reducer design problem.
Table 10. Statistical results of optimization algorithms on speed reducer design problem.
AlgorithmMeanBestWorstStdMedianRank
GAO2996.34822996.34822996.34829.33E−132996.34821
WSO2996.59792996.34832998.50760.5152532996.36243
AVOA3000.31952996.34823009.32273.4958133000.23184
RSA3243.41183160.63873294.78250.6714523256.51929
MPA2996.34822996.34822996.34822.81E−062996.34822
TSA3027.87433011.78993039.97138.93311083029.44957
WOA3131.76283033.26343391.711193.648813102.39198
MVO3025.83943006.81973061.392511.6798233026.22696
GWO3003.6373000.89913008.89212.20892083003.18075
TLBO6.128E+134999.65844.435E+141.02E+142.4E+1312
GSA3400.11133149.09143947.2386231.003013285.890310
PSO9.044E+133266.10034.581E+141.092E+146.468E+1313
GA4.354E+133305.1452.81E+146.859E+131.745E+1311
Table 11. Performance of optimization algorithms on welded beam design problem.
Table 11. Performance of optimization algorithms on welded beam design problem.
AlgorithmOptimum VariablesOptimum Cost
hltb
GAO0.20572963.47048879.03662390.20572961.7246798
WSO0.20572963.47048889.03662380.20572961.7248523
AVOA0.2050563.48509769.03652990.20573391.7257923
RSA0.19777253.52701929.81889420.21635791.9455461
MPA0.20572963.47048879.03662390.20572961.7248523
TSA0.20437873.49240819.06090.20610551.7327713
WOA0.21277383.34653318.98131360.21917541.8098061
MVO0.20596173.4654889.04372360.20601671.7279454
GWO0.20560853.47326859.03628590.20579051.7254435
TLBO0.30217774.30802337.06499120.39890072.86852
GSA0.28331682.81112027.61409350.29573852.0415263
PSO0.35261713.43015087.54667540.52997323.7483578
GA0.22209016.50320927.91547680.29258692.6371953
Table 12. Statistical results of optimization algorithms on welded beam design problem.
Table 12. Statistical results of optimization algorithms on welded beam design problem.
AlgorithmMeanBestWorstStdMedianRank
GAO1.72467981.72467981.72467982.28E−161.72467981
WSO1.72485261.72485231.72485721.101E−061.72485233
AVOA1.75686911.72579231.82860170.03211071.74463737
RSA2.1270391.94554612.43312870.12691762.10499338
MPA1.72485231.72485231.72485232.95E−091.72485232
TSA1.74096271.73277131.74905670.00493591.74104756
WOA2.24070551.80980613.76875150.56503132.04264299
MVO1.73926651.72794541.76905020.01211311.73568265
GWO1.72696571.72544351.73052640.00119991.72674984
TLBO2.929E+132.868522.826E+147.143E+135.217460912
GSA2.35779962.04152632.62950.16862982.383812610
PSO4.039E+133.74835782.445E+147.713E+136.131857313
GA9.913E+122.63719531.073E+143.043E+135.188049411
Table 13. Performance of optimization algorithms on tension/compression spring design problem.
Table 13. Performance of optimization algorithms on tension/compression spring design problem.
AlgorithmOptimum VariablesOptimum Cost
dDp
GAO0.05168910.356717711.2889660.0126019
WSO0.05168730.356675811.2914260.0126652
AVOA0.05125110.346294711.9338720.0126696
RSA0.05031750.319251314.302360.0130991
MPA0.05169050.356753411.2868730.0126652
TSA0.05107250.342085212.2212530.01268
WOA0.05122870.345766911.9684270.01267
MVO0.05031750.324354213.5748040.0127396
GWO0.05192420.362390510.9689510.01267
TLBO0.06581330.82775493.74624010.0169026
GSA0.05470150.43102988.2354680.0130247
PSO0.06574080.82501493.74624020.0168129
GA0.06622470.834623.74624020.0172493
Table 14. Statistical results of optimization algorithms on tension/compression spring design problem.
Table 14. Statistical results of optimization algorithms on tension/compression spring design problem.
AlgorithmMeanBestWorstStdMedianRank
GAO0.01260190.01260190.01260196.88E−180.01260191
WSO0.01267490.01266520.0128053.115E−050.01266563
AVOA0.0132540.01266960.01395770.00048440.01319478
RSA0.01317010.01309910.01329526.028E−050.01315186
MPA0.01266520.01266520.01266522.47E−090.01266522
TSA0.01292350.012680.01341330.00020990.01285955
WOA0.01319280.012670.01425850.0005250.01302057
MVO0.01597490.01273960.01722390.00143110.01677079
GWO0.01271540.012670.01290944.805E−050.01271324
TLBO0.01736440.01690260.01789190.0003110.01732610
GSA0.01853740.01302470.02952180.00370090.018167211
PSO1.818E+130.01681293.225E+147.217E+130.016812913
GA1.42E+120.01724931.469E+134.24E+120.023864712
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alsayyed, O.; Hamadneh, T.; Al-Tarawneh, H.; Alqudah, M.; Gochhait, S.; Leonova, I.; Malik, O.P.; Dehghani, M. Giant Armadillo Optimization: A New Bio-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithm for Solving Optimization Problems. Biomimetics 2023, 8, 619. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics8080619

AMA Style

Alsayyed O, Hamadneh T, Al-Tarawneh H, Alqudah M, Gochhait S, Leonova I, Malik OP, Dehghani M. Giant Armadillo Optimization: A New Bio-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithm for Solving Optimization Problems. Biomimetics. 2023; 8(8):619. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics8080619

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alsayyed, Omar, Tareq Hamadneh, Hassan Al-Tarawneh, Mohammad Alqudah, Saikat Gochhait, Irina Leonova, Om Parkash Malik, and Mohammad Dehghani. 2023. "Giant Armadillo Optimization: A New Bio-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithm for Solving Optimization Problems" Biomimetics 8, no. 8: 619. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics8080619

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop