Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Marine Predator Algorithm-Based Optimal PI Controllers for LVRT Capability Enhancement of Grid-Connected PV Systems
Previous Article in Journal
Adaptive Skid-Steering Control Approach for Robots on Uncertain Inclined Planes with Redundant Load-Bearing Mobility
Previous Article in Special Issue
Enhancing Path Planning Capabilities of Automated Guided Vehicles in Dynamic Environments: Multi-Objective PSO and Dynamic-Window Approach
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

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

1
Department of Software Engineering, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman 19328, Jordan
2
ISBM COE, Faculty of Science and Information Technology, Software Engineering, Jadara University, Irbid 21110, Jordan
3
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, The Hashemite University, P.O. Box 330127, Zarqa 13133, Jordan
4
Symbiosis Institute of Digital and Telecom Management, Constituent of Symbiosis International Deemed University, Pune 412115, India
5
Neuroscience Research Institute, Samara State Medical University, 89 Chapaevskaya Street, 443001 Samara, Russia
6
Faculty of Social Sciences, Lobachevsky University, 603950 Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
7
Former Dean of Life Sciences and Head of Zoology Department, Celland Molecular Biology, Toxicology Laboratory, Department of Zoology, Cotton University, Guwahati 781001, India
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 2024, 9(2), 65; https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics9020065
Submission received: 23 December 2023 / Revised: 10 January 2024 / Accepted: 18 January 2024 / Published: 23 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Nature-Inspired Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms)

Abstract

:
A new bio-inspired metaheuristic algorithm named the Pufferfish Optimization Algorithm (POA), that imitates the natural behavior of pufferfish in nature, is introduced in this paper. The fundamental inspiration of POA is adapted from the defense mechanism of pufferfish against predators. In this defense mechanism, by filling its elastic stomach with water, the pufferfish becomes a spherical ball with pointed spines, and as a result, the hungry predator escapes from this threat. The POA theory is stated and then mathematically modeled in two phases: (i) exploration based on the simulation of a predator’s attack on a pufferfish and (ii) exploitation based on the simulation of a predator’s escape from spiny spherical pufferfish. The performance of POA is evaluated in handling the CEC 2017 test suite for problem dimensions equal to 10, 30, 50, and 100. The optimization results show that POA has achieved an effective solution with the appropriate ability in exploration, exploitation, and the balance between them during the search process. The quality of POA in the optimization process is compared with the performance of twelve well-known metaheuristic algorithms. The simulation results show that POA provides superior performance by achieving better results in most of the benchmark functions in order to solve the CEC 2017 test suite compared to competitor algorithms. Also, the effectiveness of POA to handle optimization tasks in real-world applications is evaluated on twenty-two constrained optimization problems from the CEC 2011 test suite and four engineering design problems. Simulation results show that POA provides effective performance in handling real-world applications by achieving better solutions compared to competitor algorithms.

1. Introduction

Optimization problems are a kind of problem that have more than one feasible solution. According to this, optimization is the process of obtaining the best optimal solution among all feasible solutions for an optimization problem [1]. From a mathematical point of view, any optimization problem can be modeled using three parts: decision variables, constraints, and the objective function of the problem. The main goal in optimization is to assign values to the decision variables so that the objective function is optimized by respecting the constraints of the problem [2]. There are numerous optimization problems in science, engineering, mathematics, technology, industry, and real-world applications that must be optimized using appropriate techniques. Problem solving techniques in dealing with optimization problems are classified into two groups: deterministic and stochastic approaches [3]. Deterministic approaches in two classes, gradient-based and non-gradient-based, have effective performance in optimizing convex, linear, continuous, differentiable, and low-dimensional problems [4]. Although, when problems become more complex and especially the dimensions of the problem increase, deterministic approaches are inefficient as they get stuck in local optima [5]. On the other hand, many practical optimization problems have features such as being non-convex, non-linear, discontinuous, non-differentiable, and high dimensions. The disadvantages and ineffectiveness of deterministic approaches in solving practical optimization problems with such characteristics have led researchers to develop stochastic approaches [6].
Metaheuristic algorithms are one of the most effective stochastic approaches for solving optimization problems, which can achieve suitable solutions for optimization problems based on random search in the problem-solving space and the use of random operators and trial and error processes. The optimization process in metaheuristic algorithms is such that the first several candidate solutions are initialized randomly in the problem-solving space under the name of algorithm population. Then, these candidate solutions are improved based on the steps of updating the algorithm population during successive iterations. After the full implementation of the algorithm, the best candidate solution obtained during the algorithm iterations is presented as a solution to the problem [7]. The random search process in the performance of metaheuristic algorithms provides no guarantee to achieving the global optimum, although the solutions obtained from metaheuristic algorithms are acceptable as quasi-optimal because they are close to the global optimum. Achieving more effective solutions closer to the global optimum for optimization problems has been a motivation for researchers to design numerous metaheuristic algorithms [8].
A metaheuristic algorithm, to have an effective search process to achieve a suitable solution for the optimization problem, must be able to search the problem-solving space well at both global and local levels. The goal in global search with the concept of exploration is to comprehensively scan the problem-solving space to avoid getting stuck in local optima and to discover the region containing the main optima. The goal in local search with the concept of exploitation is to scan accurately and with small steps in promising areas in the problem-solving space to achieve better solutions closer to the global optimum. Balancing exploration and exploitation during algorithm iterations and the search process in the problem-solving space is the key point in the success of the metaheuristic algorithm in addition to having a high ability in exploration and exploitation [9].
The main research question according to the numerous metaheuristic algorithms that have been designed so far is the following: “is there still a need to introduce new algorithms or not”? In response to this question, the No Free Lunch (NFL) [10] theorem explains that the successful performance of a metaheuristic algorithm in solving a set of optimization problems is no guarantee that the same algorithm will provide the same performance in solving other optimization problems. Based on the NFL theorem, it cannot be claimed that a particular metaheuristic algorithm is the best optimizer for all optimization applications. This means that a successful algorithm in solving one optimization problem may fail in solving another problem by getting stuck in a local optimum. Hence, there is no assumption of success or failure of implementing a metaheuristic algorithm on an optimization problem. The NFL theorem, by keeping the studies of metaheuristic algorithms active, motivates researchers to provide more effective solutions to optimization problems by designing new metaheuristic algorithms.
The innovation and novelty of this paper is in introducing a new metaheuristic algorithm called the Pufferfish Optimization Algorithm (POA) to solve optimization problems in different sciences. The scientific contributions of this study are as follows:
  • POA is designed based on simulating the natural behavior of pufferfish and its predators in the sea.
  • The basic inspiration of POA is taken from the defense mechanism of pufferfish against predator attacks.
  • The theory of POA is stated and its implementation steps are mathematically modeled in two phases: (i) exploration based on the simulation of the predator’s attack on the pufferfish and (ii) exploitation based on the simulation of the pufferfish’s defense mechanism against the predator.
  • The performance of POA is evaluated to optimize the CEC 2017 test suite for problem dimensions of 10, 30, 50, and 100.
  • The effectiveness of POA in handling optimization tasks is evaluated on twenty-two constrained optimization problems from the CEC 2011 test suite and four engineering design problems.
  • Results obtained from POA are compared with the performance of twelve well-known metaheuristic algorithms.
The structure of the paper is as follows: The literature review is presented in Section 2. Then, the proposed Pufferfish Optimization Algorithm is introduced and modeled in Section 3. Simulation studies and results are presented in Section 4. The effectiveness of POA 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 by taking inspiration from various natural phenomena, lifestyles of living organisms, concepts in biological, genetics, physics sciences, rules of games, human interactions, and other evolutionary phenomena. According to the employed inspiration source in the design, metaheuristic algorithms are placed in five groups: swarm-based, evolutionary-based, physics-based, human-based, and game-based approaches.
Swarm-based metaheuristic algorithms are developed with inspiration from the natural behavior and strategies of animals, insects, birds, reptiles, aquatics, and other living creatures in the wild. Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) [11], Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) [12], Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) [13], and Firefly Algorithm (FA) [14] are among the most well-known swarm-based metaheuristic algorithms. PSO is designed based on modeling the movement of flocks of birds and swarms of fish that are searching for food. ACO is proposed based on modeling the ability of ants to explore the shortest communication path between the food source and the colony. ABC is introduced based on the modeling of the hierarchical activities of honeybees in an attempt to reach new food sources. FA is designed with inspiration from optical communication between fireflies. Pelican Optimization (PO) is another swarm-based metaheuristic algorithm, that is inspired by the strategy of pelicans during hunting [15]. Among the natural behavior of living organisms in the wild, the processes of hunting, foraging, chasing, digging, and migration are much more prominent and have been a source of inspiration in the design of swarm-based metaheuristic algorithms such as the Snake Optimizer (SO) [16], Sea Lion Optimization (SLnO) [17], Flying Foxes Optimization (FFO) [18], Mayfly Algorithm (MA) [19], White Shark Optimizer (WSO) [20], African Vultures Optimization Algorithm (AVOA) [21], Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO) [22], Reptile Search Algorithm (RSA) [23], Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA) [24], Golden Jackal Optimization (GJO) [25], Honey Badger Algorithm (HBA) [26], Marine Predator Algorithm (MPA) [27], Orca Predation Algorithm (OPA) [28], and Tunicate Swarm Algorithm (TSA) [29].
Evolutionary-based metaheuristic algorithms are developed with inspiration from the concepts of biology and genetics, natural selection, survival of the fittest, and Darwin’s evolutionary theory. The Genetic Algorithm (GA) [30] and Differential Evolution (DE) [31] are the most well-known algorithms of this group, whose design is inspired by the reproduction process, genetic concepts, and the use of random mutation, selection, and crossover operators. The Artificial Immune System (AIS) is introduced based on the simulation of the mechanism of the body’s defense system against diseases and microbes [32]. Some other evolutionary-based metaheuristic algorithms are the Cultural Algorithm (CA) [33], Genetic Programming (GP) [34], and Evolution Strategy (ES) [35].
Physics-based metaheuristic algorithms are developed with inspiration from laws, transformations, processes, phenomena, forces, and other concepts in physics. Simulated Annealing (SA) is one of the most well-known physics-based metaheuristic algorithms, which is developed based on the modeling of the metal annealing phenomenon. In this process, with the aim of achieving an ideal crystal, metals are first melted under heat, then slowly cooled [36]. Physical forces and Newton’s laws of motion have been fundamental inspirations in designing algorithms such as the Gravitational Search Algorithm (GSA) based on gravitational attraction force [37], the Momentum Search Algorithm (MSA) [38] based on momentum force, and the Spring Search Algorithm (SSA) [39] based on the elastic force of a spring. The Water Cycle Algorithm (WCA) is proposed based on the modeling of physical transformations in the natural water cycle [40]. Some other physics-based metaheuristic algorithms are Fick’s Law Algorithm (FLA) [41], Prism Refraction Search (PRS) [42], Henry Gas Optimization (HGO) [43], Black Hole Algorithm (BHA) [44], Nuclear Reaction Optimization (NRO) [45], Equilibrium Optimizer (EO) [46], Multi-Verse Optimizer (MVO) [47], Lichtenberg Algorithm (LA) [48], Archimedes Optimization Algorithm (AOA) [49], Thermal Exchange Optimization (TEO) [50], and Electro-Magnetism Optimization (EMO) [51].
Human-based metaheuristic algorithms are developed with inspiration from the thoughts, choices, decisions, interactions, communications, and other activities of humans in society or personal life. The Teaching–Learning-Based Optimization (TLBO) is one of the most widely used human-based metaheuristic algorithms, whose design is inspired by educational communication and knowledge exchange between teachers and students, as well as students with each other [52]. The Mother Optimization Algorithm (MOA) is introduced with inspiration from Eshrat’s care of her children [6]. The Election-Based Optimization Algorithm (EBOA) is proposed based on modeling the process of voting and holding elections in society [8]. The Chef-Based Optimization Algorithm (CHBO) is designed based on the simulation of teaching cooking skills by chefs to applicants in culinary schools [53]. The Teamwork Optimization Algorithm (TOA) is developed with the inspiration of collaboration among team members in providing teamwork in order to achieve specified team goals [54]. Some other human-based metaheuristic algorithms are Driving Training-Based Optimization (DTBO) [5], War Strategy Optimization (WSO) [55], Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves (AFT) [56], Gaining Sharing Knowledge-based Algorithm (GSK) [57], and Coronavirus Herd Immunity Optimizer (CHIO) [58].
Game-based metaheuristic algorithms are developed by taking inspiration from the rules of games as well as the behavior of players, coaches, referees, and other influential people in individual and team games. The Darts Game Optimizer (DGO) is one of the most well-known algorithms of this group, which is proposed based on modeling the competition of players in throwing darts and collecting more points in order to win the game [59]. The Golf Optimization Algorithm (GOA) is introduced based on the simulation of players hitting the ball in order to place the ball in the holes [60]. The Puzzle Algorithm (PA) is designed based on modeling the strategy of players putting puzzle pieces together in order to complete it according to the pattern [61]. Some other game-based metaheuristic algorithms are Volleyball Premier League (VPL) [62], Running City Game Optimizer (RCGO) [63], and Tug of War Optimization (TWO) [64].
Based on the best knowledge obtained from the literature review, no metaheuristic algorithm inspired by the natural behavior of pufferfish in the wild has been introduced so far. Meanwhile, the attack of the hungry predator on the pufferfish and the defense mechanism of the pufferfish against the attacks of the predators are intelligent processes that can be the basis for the design of a new optimizer. To address this research gap in the studies of metaheuristic algorithms, a new bio-inspired metaheuristic algorithm, based on the modeling of natural behavior between pufferfish and their predators, has been designed and is described in the next section.

3. Pufferfish Optimization Algorithm

In this section, the inspiration source in the design of the proposed Pufferfish Optimization Algorithm approach is stated first, then its implementation steps are mathematically modeled to be used to solve optimization problems.

3.1. Inspiration of POA

Pufferfish are a primarily marine and estuarine fish of the family Tetraodontidae and order Tetraodontiformes. This fish is morphologically similar to porcupinefish that have large spines. The body size of pufferfish is small to medium and their maximum length has been observed up to 50 cm [65]. Their beak-like four teeth are one of the most characteristic features of pufferfish. The lack of pectoral fins, pelvis, and ribs are also unique to pufferfish. The significantly lost fin and bone features of the pufferfish are due to the fish’s specialized defense mechanism, which extends by sucking water through the mouth cavity [66]. An image of the pufferfish is shown in Figure 1.
Pufferfish have a very slow movement, which makes them an easy target for predators. The pufferfish’s specialized defense mechanism against predator attacks is to fill its elastic stomach with water until it becomes a large, spherical, spiny ball. The pointed spines of pufferfish make the hungry predator face a ball of pointed spines instead of an easy meal. Predators, after encountering this warning, realize the danger and move away from the pufferfish [66].
Among the natural behaviors of pufferfish, conflicts between this fish and predators and the use of the defense mechanism of turning into a ball of pointed spines against the attacks of predators are much more significant. The modeling of these natural processes, which consists of (i) a predator’s attack on pufferfish and (ii) a pufferfish’s defense mechanism against predator attacks, is employed in the design of the proposed POA approach discussed below.

3.2. Algorithm Initialization

The proposed POA approach is a population-based technique that can achieve effective solutions for optimization problems by using its population search power in the problem-solving space in an iteration-based process. Each POA member determines the values for the decision variables of the problem according to its position in the search space. Therefore, each POA member is a candidate solution to the problem that can be modeled from a mathematical point of view using a vector, where each element of this vector corresponds to a decision variable. POA members together form the population of the algorithm. From a mathematical point of view, the community of these vectors can be modeled using a matrix according to Equation (1). The primary position of each POA member at the beginning of the algorithm is initialized 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 POA population matrix, X i is the i th POA member (candidate solution), x i , d is its d th dimension in the search space (decision variable), N is the number of population members, m is the number of decision variables, r is a random number in the interval 0 ,   1 , and l b d and u b d are the lower bound and upper bound of the d th decision variable, respectively.
With each POA member as a candidate solution for the problem, the objective function of the problem can be evaluated. The set of evaluated values for the objective function of the problem can be represented using a vector according to 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 POA member.
The evaluated values for the objective function are suitable criteria to measure the quality of candidate solutions proposed by each POA member. The best evaluated value for the objective function corresponds to the best member (i.e., the best candidate solution) and the worst evaluated value for the objective function corresponds to the worst member (i.e., the worst candidate solution). Considering that the position of POA members in the problem-solving space is updated in each iteration, the best member should also be updated in each iteration based on the comparison of new evaluated values for the objective function.

3.3. Mathematical Modelling of POA

In the design of the proposed POA approach, the position of population members in the problem-solving space is updated based on the simulation of natural behaviors between pufferfish and its predators. In this natural process, the predator first attacks the pufferfish. Then, the pufferfish uses its defense mechanism and turns into a ball of pointed spines, leading to the threat and escape of the predator. Therefore, in each iteration, the position of POA population members is updated in two phases: (i) exploration based on the simulation of the predator’s attack towards the pufferfish and (ii) exploitation based on the simulation of the defense mechanism of the pufferfish against the predator.

3.3.1. Phase 1: Predator Attack towards Pufferfish (Exploration Phase)

In the first phase of POA, the position of the population members is updated based on the simulation of the predator attack strategy towards the pufferfish. Because of its slow speed, pufferfish are easy prey for hungry hunters. The position change of the predator during the attack towards the pufferfish is simulated to update the position of the POA members in the problem-solving space. Modeling the movement of the predator towards the pufferfish leads to extensive changes in the position of the POA members and as a result increases the exploration power of the algorithm for global search.
In POA design for each population member as a predator, the position of other population members that have a better value for the objective function is considered as the position of the candidate pufferfish for attack. The set of pufferfish for each population member is identified using Equation (4).
C P i = X k : F k < F i   a n d   k i ,   w h e r e   i = 1 ,   2 ,   ,   N   a n d   k 1 ,   2 ,   ,   N ,
Here, C P i is the set of candidate pufferfish locations for the i th predator, X k is the population member with a better objective function value than the i th predator, and F k is its objective function value.
In the design of POA, it is assumed that among the candidate pufferfish determined in the C P set, the predator selects a pufferfish completely randomly, which is considered as the selected pufferfish ( S P ). Based on the modeling of the movement of the predator towards the pufferfish, a new position in the problem-solving space is calculated for each POA member using Equation (5). Then, if the objective function value is improved in the new position, this new position replaces the previous position of the corresponding member according to Equation (6).
x i , j P 1 = x i , j + r i , j · ( S P 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 P i is the selected pufferfish for the i th predator selected randomly from the C P i set (i.e., S P i is an element of the C P i set), S P i , j is its j th dimension, X i P 1 is the new position calculated for the i th predator based on first phase of the proposed POA, 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.

3.3.2. Phase 2: Defense Mechanism of Pufferfish against Predators (Exploitation Phase)

In the second phase of POA, the position of population members is updated based on the simulation of a pufferfish’s defense mechanism against predator attacks. When a pufferfish is attacked by a predator, it turns into a ball of pointed spines by filling its very elastic stomach with water. In this situation, the predator who faced such a warning instead of an easy meal runs away from the position of the pufferfish. Modeling the predator moving away from the pufferfish leads to small changes in the position of the POA members and as a result increases the exploitation power of the algorithm for local search.
Based on the modeling of the predator’s position change when moving away from the predator, a new position is calculated for each POA member using Equation (7). Then, this new position, if it improves the value of the objective function, replaces the corresponding member according to Equation (8).
The reason for using Equation (8) is that in POA design, effort has been made to improve the algorithm. In fact, when a new position is calculated for the POA member, it is checked from a comparison of the objective function values whether this new position for the corresponding member leads to a better solution to the problem or not. If the answer is positive, the new position is acceptable for the corresponding POA member, otherwise the new position is inappropriate (because it leads to a weaker solution) and the corresponding member remains in the previous position. Therefore, Equation (8) shows that the update process for each POA member is conditional on improving the value of the objective function.
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 predator based on the second phase of the proposed POA, 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 POA

By updating the position of all POA members based on the exploration and exploitation phases, the first iteration of the algorithm is completed. After that, the algorithm enters the next iteration and the process of updating the position of POA members continues using Equations (4) through (8) until the last iteration of the algorithm. In each iteration, the position of the best POA member is updated and stored based on the comparison of the evaluated values for the objective function. At the end of the full implementation of the algorithm, the position of the best POA member is presented as a solution to the problem. The implementation steps of POA are shown as a flowchart in Figure 2 and its pseudocode is presented in Algorithm 1.
Algorithm 1. Pseudocode of POA.
Start POA.
1:Input problem information: variables, objective function, and constraints.
2:Set POA 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: Predator attack towards pufferfish (exploration phase).
8: Determine the candidate pufferfish set for the ith POA member using Equation (4). C P i X k i : F k i < F i   a n d   k i i .
9: Select the target pufferfish for the ith POA member at random.
10: Calculate new position of ith POA member using Equation (5). x i , d P 1 x i , d + r · S P i , d I · x i , d .
11: Update ith POA 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: Defense mechanism of pufferfish against predators (exploitation phase).
13: Calculate new position of ith POA 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 POA 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 POA.
End POA.

3.5. POA for Handling the Constrained Problems

Many practical optimization problems are constrained problems that can be solved using metaheuristic algorithms. To apply POA in this type of optimization problem, two strategies have been considered: (i) replacing the inappropriate solution with a feasible solution that is randomly generated with respect to the constraints and (ii) using the penalty coefficient.
In the first case, when the constraints of the problem are not met after updating a solution, this solution is completely removed from the algorithm population and a new feasible solution is generated randomly and replaces that inappropriate solution.
In the second case, in the case of an inappropriate solution that does not meet the constraints of the problem, the objective function corresponding to that inappropriate solution is added with a penalty amount, and as a result, this solution is automatically recognized by the algorithm as a non-optimal solution.

3.6. Computational Complexity of POA

In this subsection, the computational complexity of the proposed POA approach is analyzed. The preparation and initialization steps of POA have a computational complexity equal to O(Nm), where N is the number of POA population members and m is the number of decision variables of the problem. In POA design, in each iteration, the position of population members is updated in two phases. Therefore, the POA 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 POA approach is equal to O(Nm(1 + 2T)). If fixed numbers are ignored, the computational complexity of POA can be deduced to be O(NmT).

4. Simulation Studies and Results

In this section, the performance of the proposed POA approach to solve optimization problems is evaluated. In this regard, POA is implemented to handle the CEC 2017 test suite for problem dimensions equal to 10, 30, 50, and 100.

4.1. Performance Comparison

The performance quality of POA in solving optimization problems has been compared with the performance of twelve well-known metaheuristic algorithms: GA [30], PSO [11], GSA [37], TLBO [52], MVO [47], GWO [22], WOA [24], MPA [27], TSA [29], RSA [23], AVOA [21], and WSO [20]. The values of the control parameters of the metaheuristic algorithms are given in Table 1. Simulations are implemented in the software MATLAB R2022a using a 64-bit Core i7 processor with 3.20 GHz and 16 GB main memory. The implementation results of the metaheuristic algorithms on the benchmark functions are reported with six statistical indicators: mean, best, worst, standard deviation (std), median, and rank. The values obtained for the mean index have been used as criteria in the ranking of metaheuristic algorithms in handling each of the benchmark functions.

4.2. Evaluation CEC 2017 Test Suite

In this subsection, the performance of POA and competitor algorithms in handling the CEC 2017 test suite is evaluated. The CEC 2017 test suite has thirty 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. Among these functions, C17-F2 is excluded from the simulation calculations due to its unstable behavior. A full description, details, and more information about the CEC 2017 test suite is available in [67].
The results of employing POA and competitor algorithms to optimize the CEC 2017 test suite are reported in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5. The boxplot diagrams resulting from the performance of metaheuristic algorithms are plotted in Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6. What is evident from the optimization results, in handling the CEC 2017 test suite for the problem dimension equal to 10 (m = 10), is that POA is the first best optimizer for the following functions: C17-F1, C17-F3 to C17-F21, C17-F23, C17-F24, and C17-F27 to C17-F30. For the problem dimension equal to 30 (m = 30), the proposed POA approach is the first best optimizer for the following functions: C17-F1, C17-F3 to C17-F22, C17-F24, C17-F25, and C17-F27 to C17-F30. For the problem dimension equal to 50 (m = 50), the proposed POA approach is the first best optimizer for the following functions: C17-F1, C17-F3 to C17-F25, and C17-F27 to C17-F30. For the problem dimension equal to 100 (m = 100), the proposed POA approach is the first best optimizer for the following functions: C17-F1 and C17-F3 to C17-F30.
Based on the optimization results, POA has been able to achieve effective solutions for the benchmark functions with a high ability in exploration, exploitation, and the balance between them during the search process in the problem-solving space. Simulation results show that the proposed POA approach, by providing better results in most of the benchmark functions and getting the rank of the first best optimizer, has provided superior performance compared to competitor algorithms in order to handle the CEC 2017 test suite for problem dimensions equal to 10, 30, 50, and 100.
As described, the CEC 2017 test suite consists of thirty standard benchmark functions of various types. The unimodal functions C17-F1 and C17-F3 have only one global optimal solution without having any local optimum solutions. For this reason, unimodal functions are suitable criteria to evaluate the exploitation ability of metaheuristic algorithms. The findings obtained from the simulation results show that the proposed POA approach has a higher ability in exploitation for local search management by providing better results compared to competing algorithms. Multimodal functions C17-F4 to C17-F10 have several local optimal solutions in addition to the global optimum. For this reason, multimodal functions challenge the ability of metaheuristic algorithms in exploration and global search. The simulation findings of the performance of metaheuristic algorithms on functions C17-F4 to C17-F10 show that the proposed POA approach with a high exploration ability to manage the global search in the problem-solving space has provided superior performance compared to competing algorithms.
Hybrid functions C17-F11 to C17-F20 and composition functions C17-F21 to C17-F30 are suitable criteria for evaluating the ability of metaheuristic algorithms to balance exploration and exploitation during the search process in the problem-solving space. The simulation results of functions C17-F11 to C17-F30 show that the proposed POA approach with its high ability in balancing exploration and exploitation has been able to provide superior performance compared to competing algorithms. The findings obtained from the performance of the proposed POA approach and competing algorithms on the CEC 2017 test suite for problem dimensions equal to 10, 30, 50, and 100 confirm that POA has a higher ability in exploration, exploitation, and balancing them during the search process compared to competing algorithms.
The analysis of the boxplot diagrams intuitively shows that POA has been able to provide better solutions in most of the benchmark functions compared to competing algorithms. Comparing the height of the boxplot charts provides appropriate information about the standard deviation. Examining this issue shows how the results were scattered in independent performances. Therefore, what can be concluded from the intuitive analysis of the boxplot diagrams is that POA has provided better results and lower standard deviation in most of the benchmark functions, compared to competing algorithms, in handling the CEC 2017 test suite.

4.3. Statistical Analysis

In this subsection, using statistical analysis on the results obtained from metaheuristic algorithms, it has been checked whether the superiority of POA against competitor algorithms is significant from a statistical point of view. For this purpose, the Wilcoxon rank sum test [68] is employed, which is a non-parametric statistical test and is used to determine the significant difference between the means of two data samples. In this test, the presence or absence of a significant difference is determined using a criterion called the p-value.
The implementation results of the Wilcoxon rank sum test on the performance of POA against each of the competitor algorithms in dealing with the CEC 2017 test suite are reported in Table 6. Based on the results of the statistical analysis, in cases where the p-value is calculated to be less than 0.05, POA has a significant statistical superiority over the competitor algorithm. Therefore, POA has a significant statistical superiority in handling the CEC 2017 test suite for problem dimensions equal to 10, 30, 50, and 100 compared to all twelve competitor algorithms.

5. POA for Real-World Applications

In this section, the performance of the proposed POA approach in handling optimization tasks 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. The titles of these real-world applications are parameter estimation for frequency-modulated (FM) sound waves, Lennard-Jones potential problem, the bifunctional catalyst blend optimal control problem, optimal control of a non-linear stirred tank reactor, tersoff potential for model Si (B), tersoff potential for model Si (C), spread spectrum radar polly phase code design, transmission network expansion planning (TNEP) problem, large scale transmission pricing problem, circular antenna array design problem, the ELD problems (consisting of DED instance 1, DED instance 2, ELD instance 1, ELD instance 2, ELD instance 3, ELD instance 4, ELD instance 5, hydrothermal scheduling instance 1, hydrothermal scheduling instance 2, hydrothermal scheduling instance 3), messenger: spacecraft trajectory optimization problem, and cassini 2: spacecraft trajectory optimization problem. From this set, the C11-F3 function has been removed in the simulation studies from the CEC 2011 test suite, as well as four engineering design problems of pressure vessel design, speed reducer design, welded beam design, and tension/compression spring design.

5.1. Evaluation of CEC 2011 Test Suite

In this subsection, the performance of POA and competitor algorithms in handling the CEC 2011 test suite is evaluated. The CEC 2011 test suite contains twenty-two constrained optimization problems from real-world applications (Appendix A). A full description, details, and information about the CEC 2011 test suite are available in [69].
The optimization results of the CEC 2011 test suite using POA and competitor algorithms are reported in Table 7. The boxplot diagrams obtained from the performance of metaheuristic algorithms are plotted in Figure 7. The optimization results show that POA, with its high ability in exploration, exploitation, and balancing them, has been able to achieve effective results for optimization problems and be the first best optimizer for problems C11-F1 to C11-F22. What can be concluded from the simulation results is that POA has provided superior performance by providing better results in most of the optimization problems and getting the rank of the first best optimizer to deal with the CEC 2011 test suite compared to competitor algorithms. In addition, the statistical results obtained from the Wilcoxon rank sum test confirm that POA has significant statistical superiority compared to competitor algorithms.

5.2. Pressure Vessel Design Problem

Pressure vessel design is a real-world application with the issue of minimizing construction cost. The schematic of this design is shown in Figure 8 and its mathematical model is given below [70]:
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 + 1296000   0 ,     g 4 x = x 4 240     0 .
With
0 x 1 , x 2 100   a n d   10 x 3 , x 4 200 .
The results of the implementation of POA and competitor algorithms on the pressure vessel design problem are reported in Table 8 and Table 9. The convergence curve of POA while achieving the optimal design is plotted in Figure 9. Based on the obtained results, POA has provided the optimal design 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. Simulation results show that POA has provided superior performance by achieving better results to optimize the pressure vessel design problem compared to competitor algorithms.

5.3. Speed Reducer Design Problem

Speed reducer design is a real-world application with the issue of minimizing the weight of the speed reducer. Schematic of this design is shown in Figure 10 and its mathematical model is given below [71,72]:
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 ,   a n d   5 x 7 5.5 .
The results of employing POA and competitor algorithms on the speed reducer design problem are presented in Table 10 and Table 11. The convergence curve of POA while achieving the optimal design for the speed reducer problem is drawn in Figure 11. Based on the obtained results, POA has provided the optimal design 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. What is evident from the analysis of simulation results is that POA has provided superior performance by achieving better results to solve the speed reducer design problem compared to competitor algorithms.

5.4. Welded Beam Design

Welded beam design is a real-world application with the issue of minimizing the fabrication cost of the welded beam. The schematic of this design is shown in Figure 12 and its mathematical model is given below [24]:
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 13600     0 ,     g 2 x = σ x 30000     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 = 504000 x 4 x 3 2   ,
δ   x = 65856000 30 · 1 0 6 x 4 x 3 3   ,     p c   x = 4.013 30 · 1 0 6 x 3 2 x 4 6 36 196 1 x 3 28 30 · 1 0 6 4 ( 12 · 1 0 6 )   .
With
0.1 x 1 ,   x 4 2       a n d   0.1 x 2 ,   x 3 10 .
The results of dealing with the welded beam design problem using POA and competitor algorithms are reported in Table 12 and Table 13. The POA convergence curve while achieving the optimal design for the welded beam problem is plotted in Figure 13. Based on the obtained results, POA has provided the optimal design 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. Analysis of the simulation results shows that POA provides superior performance for solving the welded beam design problem by achieving better results compared to competitor algorithms.

5.5. Tension/Compression Spring Design

Tension/compression spring design is a real-world application with the issue of minimizing construction cost. The schematic of this design is shown in Figure 14 and its mathematical model is given below [24]:
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 71785 x 1 4     0 ,     g 2 x = 4 x 2 2 x 1 x 2 12566 ( 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         a n d         2   x 3 15
The optimization results of the tension/compression spring design problem using POA and competitor algorithms are reported in Table 14 and Table 15. The convergence curve of POA while achieving the optimal design for the tension/compression spring problem is drawn in Figure 15. Based on the obtained results, POA has provided the optimal design 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. What can be concluded from the simulation results is that POA provides superior performance by achieving better results in order to deal with the tension/compression spring design problem compared to competitor algorithms.

6. Conclusions and Future Works

A new bio-inspired metaheuristic algorithm, called the Pufferfish Optimization Algorithm (POA), which imitates the natural behavior between pufferfish and their predators in the sea, is introduced in this paper. The fundamental inspiration for POA is derived from the attacks of hungry predators on pufferfish and the defense mechanism of pufferfish against these attacks. The theory of POA is described and mathematically modeled in two phases, (i) exploration based on the simulation of the predator attack on pufferfish and (ii) exploitation based on the simulation of the escape of the predator from the spiny spherical pufferfish. The performance of POA is evaluated in handling the CEC 2017 test suite for problem dimensions equal to 10, 30, 50, and 100. The optimization results show that POA has a high ability in exploration, exploitation, and the balance between them during the search process to provide effective solutions. To measure the ability of POA in optimization, the obtained results are compared with the performance of twelve well-known metaheuristic algorithms. Simulation results show that POA provides superior performance compared to competitor algorithms by achieving better results for most of the benchmark functions. The use of the Wilcoxon rank sum test statistical analysis confirmed that this superiority of POA is also significant from a statistical point of view. In addition, the effectiveness of POA in handling real-world applications was challenged in handling twenty-two constrained optimization problems from the CEC 2011 test suite and four engineering design problems. The optimization results show that POA offers effective performance to handle optimization tasks in real-world applications.
Based on the simulation results, in handling the CEC 2017 test suite for the problem dimension equal to 10, the proposed POA approach had the best performance in 24/29 functions, i.e., 82.75%. For the problem dimension equal to 30, POA was successful in 27/29 functions, i.e., 93.10%. For the problem dimension equal to 50, POA performed best in 28/29 functions, i.e., 96.55%. For the problem dimension equal to 100, POA performed best in 29/29 functions, i.e., 100%. Also, the proposed POA approach in dealing with real-world applications consisting of the CEC 2011 test suite and four engineering design problems presented the best performance in 26/26 optimization problems, i.e., 100%.
The proposed POA approach has several advantages for global optimization problems. The first advantage of POA is that there is no control parameter in the design of this algorithm. Therefore, there is no need to control the parameters in any way. The second advantage of POA is its high effective efficiency in dealing with a variety of optimization problems in various sciences as well as complex high-dimensional problems. The third advantage of the proposed POA method is that it shows its great ability to balance exploration and exploitation in the search process, which allows it to have high-speed convergence to provide suitable values for the decision variables in optimization tasks, especially in complex problems. The fourth advantage of the proposed POA is its powerful performance in handling real-world optimization applications. However, there are several disadvantages and limitations regarding POA. The first one is that because POA is a stochastic approach, there is no guarantee to achieve the global optimum using the proposed POA approach. The second disadvantage of POA is that based on the NFL theorem, there is no assumption about the success or failure of its implementation on an optimization problem. The third disadvantage is that there is always the possibility that newer metaheuristic algorithms will be designed that perform better compared to POA.
The introduction of POA enables several research proposals for future work. The most special of these research proposals is the development of multi-objective and binary versions of the proposed POA approach. Also, the employment of POA to deal with optimization issues in different sciences and real-world applications is one of the other research proposals of this study for future work.

Author Contributions

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

Funding

“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 conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

The optimal value (OV) for each test function of the CEC 2017 test suite is presented in Table A1. It is also explained in Appendix A. Also, information about the optimal values of the CEC 2011 test suite is given in reference [69].
Table A1. The optimal values of CEC 2017 test suite.
Table A1. The optimal values of CEC 2017 test suite.
functionC17-F1C17-F2C17-F3C17-F4C17-F5C17-F6C17-F7C17-F8C17-F9C17-F10C17-F11C17-F12C17-F13C17-F14C17-F15
OV100200300400500600700800900100011001200130014001500
functionC17-F16C17-F17C17-F18C17-F19C17-F20C17-F21C17-F22C17-F23C17-F24C17-F25C17-F26C17-F27C17-F28C17-F29C17-F30
OV160017001800190020002100220023002400250026002700280029003000

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, 453. [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.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. 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]
  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. 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]
  9. Zhao, W.; Wang, L.; Zhang, Z.; Fan, H.; Zhang, J.; Mirjalili, S.; Khodadadi, N.; Cao, Q. Electric eel foraging optimization: A new bio-inspired optimizer for engineering applications. Expert Syst. Appl. 2024, 238, 122200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wolpert, D.H.; Macready, W.G. No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 1997, 1, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kennedy, J.; Eberhart, R. Particle Swarm Optimization. Proceedings of 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]
  12. Dorigo, M.; Maniezzo, V.; Colorni, A. Ant system: Optimization by a colony of cooperating agents. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B 1996, 26, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. 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]
  14. Yang, X.-S. Firefly algorithm, stochastic test functions and design optimisation. Int. J. Bio-Inspired Comput. 2010, 2, 78–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Trojovský, P.; Dehghani, M. Pelican Optimization Algorithm: A Novel Nature-Inspired Algorithm for Engineering Applications. Sensors 2022, 22, 855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Hashim, F.A.; Hussien, A.G. Snake Optimizer: A novel meta-heuristic optimization algorithm. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2022, 242, 108320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Masadeh, R.; Mahafzah, B.A.; Sharieh, A. Sea lion optimization algorithm. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2019, 10, 388–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zervoudakis, K.; Tsafarakis, S. A global optimizer inspired from the survival strategies of flying foxes. Eng. Comput. 2023, 39, 1583–1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zervoudakis, K.; Tsafarakis, S. A mayfly optimization algorithm. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2020, 145, 106559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. 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]
  21. 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]
  22. Mirjalili, S.; Mirjalili, S.M.; Lewis, A. Grey Wolf Optimizer. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2014, 69, 46–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. 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]
  24. Mirjalili, S.; Lewis, A. The whale optimization algorithm. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2016, 95, 51–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. 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]
  26. 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]
  27. 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]
  28. 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]
  29. 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]
  30. Goldberg, D.E.; Holland, J.H. Genetic Algorithms and Machine Learning. Mach. Learn. 1988, 3, 95–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. 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]
  32. 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]
  33. 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]
  34. Koza, J.R.; 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]
  35. Beyer, H.-G.; Schwefel, H.-P. Evolution strategies–a comprehensive introduction. Nat. Comput. 2002, 1, 3–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kirkpatrick, S.; Gelatt, C.D.; Vecchi, M.P. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 1983, 220, 671–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Rashedi, E.; Nezamabadi-Pour, H.; Saryazdi, S. GSA: A gravitational search algorithm. Inf. Sci. 2009, 179, 2232–2248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. 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]
  39. 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]
  40. 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]
  41. Hashim, F.A.; Mostafa, R.R.; Hussien, A.G.; Mirjalili, S.; Sallam, K.M. Fick’s Law Algorithm: A physical law-based algorithm for numerical optimization. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2023, 260, 110146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kundu, R.; Chattopadhyay, S.; Nag, S.; Navarro, M.A.; Oliva, D. Prism refraction search: A novel physics-based metaheuristic algorithm. J. Supercomput. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. 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]
  44. Hatamlou, A. Black hole: A new heuristic optimization approach for data clustering. Inf. Sci. 2013, 222, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. 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]
  46. Faramarzi, A.; Heidarinejad, M.; Stephens, B.; Mirjalili, S. Equilibrium optimizer: A novel optimization algorithm. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2020, 191, 105190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. 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]
  48. Pereira, J.L.J.; Francisco, M.B.; Diniz, C.A.; Oliver, G.A.; Cunha Jr, S.S.; Gomes, G.F. Lichtenberg algorithm: A novel hybrid physics-based meta-heuristic for global optimization. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 170, 114522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. 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]
  50. Kaveh, A.; Dadras, A. A novel meta-heuristic optimization algorithm: Thermal exchange optimization. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2017, 110, 69–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. 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]
  52. 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]
  53. Trojovská, E.; Dehghani, M. A new human-based metahurestic optimization method based on mimicking cooking training. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 14861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Dehghani, M.; Trojovský, P. Teamwork Optimization Algorithm: A New Optimization Approach for Function Minimization/Maximization. Sensors 2021, 21, 4567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. 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]
  56. 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]
  57. 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]
  58. 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] [PubMed]
  59. 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]
  60. 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]
  61. Zeidabadi, F.A.; Dehghani, M. POA: Puzzle Optimization Algorithm. Int. J. Intell. Eng. Syst. 2022, 15, 273–281. [Google Scholar]
  62. Moghdani, R.; Salimifard, K. Volleyball premier league algorithm. Appl. Soft Comput. 2018, 64, 161–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ma, B.; Hu, Y.; Lu, P.; Liu, Y. Running city game optimizer: A game-based metaheuristic optimization algorithm for global optimization. J. Comput. Des. Eng. 2023, 10, 65–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kaveh, A.; Zolghadr, A. A Novel Meta-Heuristic Algorithm: Tug of War Optimization. Int. J. Optim. Civ. Eng. 2016, 6, 469–492. [Google Scholar]
  65. John R, P.; Eschmeyer, W.N. Encyclopedia of Fishes, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  66. Brainerd, E.L.; Patek, S.N. Vertebral column morphology, C-start curvature, and the evolution of mechanical defenses in tetraodontiform fishes. Copeia 1998, 1998, 971–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. 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. Technol. Rep. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  68. Wilcoxon, F. Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods. In Breakthroughs in Statistics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1992; pp. 196–202. [Google Scholar]
  69. 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, Nanyang Technological University: Kolkata, India, 2010; pp. 341–359. [Google Scholar]
  70. 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]
  71. 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]
  72. 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. Pufferfish taken from free media Wikimedia Commons.
Figure 1. Pufferfish taken from free media Wikimedia Commons.
Biomimetics 09 00065 g001
Figure 2. Flowchart of POA.
Figure 2. Flowchart of POA.
Biomimetics 09 00065 g002
Figure 3. Boxplot diagrams of POA and competitor algorithms’ performances on CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 10).
Figure 3. Boxplot diagrams of POA and competitor algorithms’ performances on CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 10).
Biomimetics 09 00065 g003aBiomimetics 09 00065 g003b
Figure 4. Boxplot diagrams of POA and competitor algorithms’ performances on CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 30).
Figure 4. Boxplot diagrams of POA and competitor algorithms’ performances on CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 30).
Biomimetics 09 00065 g004aBiomimetics 09 00065 g004b
Figure 5. Boxplot diagrams of POA and competitor algorithms’ performances on CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 50).
Figure 5. Boxplot diagrams of POA and competitor algorithms’ performances on CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 50).
Biomimetics 09 00065 g005aBiomimetics 09 00065 g005b
Figure 6. Boxplot diagrams of POA and competitor algorithms’ performances on CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 100).
Figure 6. Boxplot diagrams of POA and competitor algorithms’ performances on CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 100).
Biomimetics 09 00065 g006aBiomimetics 09 00065 g006b
Figure 7. Boxplot diagrams of POA and competitor algorithms’ performances on CEC 2011 test suite.
Figure 7. Boxplot diagrams of POA and competitor algorithms’ performances on CEC 2011 test suite.
Biomimetics 09 00065 g007
Figure 8. Schematic of pressure vessel design.
Figure 8. Schematic of pressure vessel design.
Biomimetics 09 00065 g008
Figure 9. POA’s performance convergence curve on pressure vessel design.
Figure 9. POA’s performance convergence curve on pressure vessel design.
Biomimetics 09 00065 g009
Figure 10. Schematic of speed reducer design.
Figure 10. Schematic of speed reducer design.
Biomimetics 09 00065 g010
Figure 11. POA’s performance convergence curve on speed reducer design.
Figure 11. POA’s performance convergence curve on speed reducer design.
Biomimetics 09 00065 g011
Figure 12. Schematic of welded beam design.
Figure 12. Schematic of welded beam design.
Biomimetics 09 00065 g012
Figure 13. POA’s performance convergence curve on welded beam design.
Figure 13. POA’s performance convergence curve on welded beam design.
Biomimetics 09 00065 g013
Figure 14. Schematic of tension/compression spring design.
Figure 14. Schematic of tension/compression spring design.
Biomimetics 09 00065 g014
Figure 15. POA’s performance convergence curve on tension/compression spring.
Figure 15. POA’s performance convergence curve on tension/compression spring.
Biomimetics 09 00065 g015
Table 1. Control parameter values.
Table 1. Control parameter values.
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 + r a n d )
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, c3Random 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 parameter β = 0.01
Sensitive parameter α = 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
Table 2. Optimization results of CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 10); background color has been used in order to make the table more reader-friendly and to separate the results of benchmark functions from each other; The best results are specified using bold.
Table 2. Optimization results of CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 10); background color has been used in order to make the table more reader-friendly and to separate the results of benchmark functions from each other; The best results are specified using bold.
POAWSOAVOARSAMPATSAWOAMVOGWOTLBOGSAPSOGA
C17-F1mean1004.55 × 1093225.2518.52 × 10929,456,3721.45 × 1095,384,5326295.12973,640,1451.23 × 108639.772641.6399,894,286
best1003.82 × 109113.03847.37 × 1099369.2023.11 × 1083,920,7294010.16423,221.7354,735,477100.0161305.08635,123,646
worst1005.71 × 1099961.7161.02 × 10101.07 × 1083.17 × 1097,089,3959268.0772.68 × 1082.96 × 1081510.9487789.60514,204,094
std08.41 × 1084725.0981.29 × 10953,343,0771.31 × 1091,377,3442529.8891.33 × 1081.2 × 108626.99593559.583,898,254
median1004.34 × 1091413.1258.29 × 1095,399,1851.17 × 1095,264,0035951.13713,496,67870,182,972474.05811235.93310,124,702
rank11241381165910237
C17-F3mean3006378.9301.58058102.0091224.3699399.4151493.376300.04562610.921655.77098611.10530012,379.73
best3003479.5743004391.427710.05493610.069566.4824300.01061325.137442.9155437.1393003679.862
worst3008532.601303.380510,823.22165.31613,268.462829.352300.10384963.289794.816811,686.3230019,538.86
std02278.7121.883373020.559689.61014212.5391094.9850.0420551724.025158.44432647.2964.77 × 10−148508.885
median1.31034510.965526.10344812.068973.6551729.8620698.24137946.4827596.5862078.2068976.3103456.793103
rank19410612738511213
C17-F4mean400832.9399403.96891194.33405.6187547.3643421.0073402.7854409.8048407.6604403.8033416.9675412.2951
best400627.2234401.0368771.6337402.0435465.0221405.381401.3315405.0867407.0049402.975400.0883409.7553
worst4001019.23405.45181608.364409.5054643.505461.4439404.0891423.6902408.0743405.0755458.7854415.4025
std0180.41092.136488366.83663.78046989.8573327.772661.4727039.5079880.4710.98940528.929072.538467
median400842.6533404.69351198.66405.4629540.4651408.6021402.8604405.2212407.7813403.5813404.4981412.0112
rank11241351110276398
C17-F5mean501.2464552.1378537.357561.6212511.0763554.4922534.7626520.197511.1956528.9305545.6336523.7417523.836
best500.9951539.7089522.8013549.3927507.3653536.6275519.9448508.7872507.3485524.2608541.4915509.5614519.8255
worst501.9917560.5654553.1728574.2389515.3498581.634565.1408532.364517.3034531.87555.5081543.8277528.6581
std0.5103619.58076816.3280114.211834.34956220.5091421.7458710.110234.3906413.4331716.84749716.203524.062694
median500.9993554.1385536.7271561.4266510.7951549.8536526.9824519.8183510.0652529.7956542.7673520.7889523.4302
rank11191321284371056
C17-F6mean600627.3309614.6691634.4767601.0111621.0302619.6218601.8208600.9545605.8124614.5724606.2928608.69
best600623.5055613.8184631.7558600.6021612.7676606.3745600.3998600.5048604.0305602.47601.1473605.8484
worst600631.2956616.8301638.0792602.0311634.2348638.2827603.6532601.4559608.5909630.6117616.3121612.2851
std03.4722191.4840362.9186490.7002469.51167513.800041.5016180.4043852.13549313.371837.0649532.930533
median600627.2613614.0139634.0359600.7057618.5592616.915601.6152600.9287605.3141612.604603.856608.3133
rank11291331110425867
C17-F7mean711.1267783.4441757.2336790.1017722.5726810.5305754.2906727.8586723.7378745.795716.2033729.4378732.9366
best710.6726769.04738.836778.8415719.0263776.5166745.0046716.3701716.5132741.9062714.3682723.4728724.2721
worst711.7995793.0312780.7714800.7603726.2643845.5942779.3306744.1291738.5278752.6074719.2987739.1632736.7494
std0.52603510.4638419.7691310.55443.11517430.8095317.1940612.010610.373854.885092.2058967.3835286.02182
median711.0174785.8527754.6635790.4025722.4998810.0057746.4136725.4676719.955744.3332715.5731727.5577735.3625
rank11110123139548267
C17-F8mean801.4928840.4137826.6076845.7371810.9673841.1529831.0484810.2577813.6633832.19817.0678819.5292814.4624
best800.995835.9776817.349836.3057807.6532827.5049815.903806.4482809.0741826.2583810.3401813.4552811.0084
worst801.9912845.801839.933850.1049812.8626857.434841.4662814.2402817.8153838.8887823.5791825.0745820.994
std0.5904485.2609839.7719216.5482682.43430213.7134111.282283.2849913.761516.6275415.7877285.9244694.572311
median801.4926839.938824.5741848.2689811.6767839.8363833.4122810.1712813.8819831.8065817.1759819.7935812.9235
rank11181331292410675
C17-F9mean9001342.6651144.151380.729904.40511307.3551302.765900.6792910.1139910.0229900903.5951904.3318
best9001213.579945.52941299.548900.27751127.1271047.555900.0009900.4858906.1292900900.7621902.3713
worst9001461.7941545.0281497.235911.30741551.6251540.964902.6395928.0779916.9536900910.4403907.6936
std0110.3068285.31886.454285.099179188.6618213.34051.34275513.295424.88605104.7468022.472394
median9001347.6441043.0211363.067903.01771275.3351311.271900.0381905.9459908.5044900901.589903.6311
rank1118125109276134
C17-F10mean1006.1792094.7111653.5752325.7021434.3731867.5491861.1681656.0661609.5811984.5812073.6451794.6891601.404
best1000.2841844.8291407.4652183.2651329.9971635.5811379.0041382.5721453.8911657.3531839.941472.0011349.864
worst1012.6682216.2532188.5932626.8011496.4892080.0652300.4632076.2871832.6012225.6172161.6192134.6671932.365
std6.836865177.0655377.3195212.478780.45788240.0084458.2015344.9953165.4887248.0571160.3531279.4831256.8364
median1005.8822158.8821509.122246.3711455.5021877.2751882.6031582.7031575.9162027.6762146.511786.0431561.693
rank11251329864101173
C17-F11mean11003052.8481140.6643518.0661122.6754754.9931142.7221123.0611146.3391142.6831132.8591136.4932175.454
best11002007.7071114.2941400.6521111.0674630.7211110.8651104.651118.1271131.7181116.471127.0391112.613
worst11004072.841185.3355609.4411149.2814823.1781161.2891141.0081207.6271160.6211157.5261154.5145190.671
std0952.195132.116561942.81718.5339187.8561123.9151218.6581842.8520812.8147717.9974512.708432065.104
median11003065.4231131.5143531.0871115.1764783.0371149.3671123.2941129.8011139.1981128.7191132.211199.267
rank11161221383974510
C17-F12mean1352.9592.97 × 108925,391.75.93 × 108477,319.8874,188.81,979,065865,3061,189,9694,247,558857,9707016.058508,801.4
best1318.64666,857,398299,477.11.32 × 10816,909.18453,430144,583.97633.40538,406.711,136,852399,108.92327.135147,522.3
worst1438.1765.19 × 1081,678,0101.04 × 109746,882.41,073,1913,283,0742,717,5731,862,5427,519,3071,450,81311,928.71897,999.2
std58.850782.35 × 108662,257.54.7 × 108330,296.3300,169.81,498,4771,285,727825,776.53,472,325457,249.74491.941316,505.5
median1327.5063.01 × 108862,039.86.02 × 108572,743.7985,067.22,244,302368,008.71,429,4644,167,037790,979.26904.195494,842
rank11281337106911524
C17-F13mean1305.32414,453,03415,617.2328,897,7554775.97410,914.646578.5185863.7098864.91814,267.138673.5015773.51345,976.95
best1303.1141,205,1332496.9022,399,3573335.2836585.8832965.8871373.1095677.49813,483.274451.1622207.6697389.402
worst1308.50847,973,52626,610.7195,934,8245794.40217,170.5912,945.7910,613.5412,301.3916,181.0212,131.514,257.57151,548.5
std2.33434623,002,09412,803.8946,001,7011204.5564692.1154672.7164916.2382788.1051323.0273334.1955873.67572,330.17
median1304.8374,316,73816,680.668,628,4194987.1069951.0535201.1965734.0958740.39113,702.119055.673314.40612,484.95
rank11210132854796311
C17-F14mean1400.7463425.1251923.3954721.3541854.6333071.7951500.2971544.7882196.5241560.7214905.2792742.87511,128.99
best14002876.3261634.9894160.6381429.4821474.1571469.0261419.6091452.6071497.8964094.5391427.3713357.938
worst1400.9954457.1392601.9096025.9682665.3054920.321533.6391899.6664398.7611586.2476578.3755981.16121,956.75
std0.510957743.7893468.0622899.962595.29861882.8633.93495243.05161507.9643.224551195.3522235.2628092.2
median1400.9953183.5181728.3424349.4051661.8722946.3521499.2621429.9381467.3631579.3714474.1021781.4839600.644
rank11061159237412813
C17-F15mean1500.3318823.2894695.90911,912.343583.3546130.1765470.2851535.2665130.3071676.09120,332.037808.4954066.484
best1500.0012966.9311981.772538.5132950.1032189.7171932.9971521.8623241.9861570.7839684.1992654.2091828.644
worst1500.514,888.9710,862.7825,783.444354.21410,794.4511,552.871545.4246043.7941751.57230,396.0112,686.416981.342
std0.2418035273.1864255.39910,424.41598.26523797.9894306.83210.577881322.26991.1237210,162.764306.452631.154
median1500.4138718.6292969.5429663.6983514.555768.274197.6361536.8895617.7241691.00420,623.967946.6813727.975
rank11161249827313105
C17-F16mean1600.761939.0041776.4311950.4511670.9821976.4281894.9781782.0441708.2231664.8151998.1931872.3971770.358
best1600.3561880.8291635.6651784.6411635.3011820.9371738.9571706.6221613.4921642.9821892.1921787.2071699.991
worst1601.122038.3941874.6342180.761696.7232131.6312002.9061833.9311789.7921710.4742162.1042006.8091796.503
std0.3244772.16946103.3883171.820727.14079144.7973128.839555.2993574.7075532.32517126.0765104.472448.224
median1600.7811918.3981797.7131918.2011675.9531976.5721919.0251793.8121714.8041652.9021969.2371847.7861792.468
rank11061131297421385
C17-F17mean1700.0991802.8561742.9241799.641730.0951786.0221819.4371820.1781757.6931749.1561823.5381744.0891747.136
best1700.021788.4311729.011785.3951718.4461773.2771761.9551766.1261720.641740.6121740.3521738.5311744.49
worst1700.3321808.9971779.9631807.3911763.0551795.1771859.361910.8021844.4231757.5171929.8471749.7071749.175
std0.1593679.93545325.4270810.0516122.580519.66159143.4657470.3691859.687948.58484399.235114.9112842.168843
median1700.0221806.9971731.3621802.8881719.441787.8181828.2161801.8921732.8551749.2481811.9761744.061747.44
rank11039281112761345
C17-F18mean1805.362,399,08610,241.214,782,0989564.0910,411.1619,850.5317,869.4216,995.7725,051.268441.91318,649.3111,044.94
best1800.003123,923.24355.372237,008.53779.8416555.4485705.3717595.7185596.97720,423.435658.5572707.2153173.378
worst1820.4516,951,47613,378.8913,881,60714,152.913,959.1331,012.6328,581.1728,478.9631,262.2610,239.9734,482.8315,801.01
std10.335993,247,8334155.946,493,3064845.0143162.78812,525.2910,147.7511,917.165120.5032008.17116,847.525665.568
median1800.4921,260,47311,615.292,504,88810,161.8110,565.0221,342.0717,650.416,953.5824,259.688934.56218,703.5912,602.68
rank11241335108711296
C17-F19mean1900.445325,504.35935.585591,041.35003.989105,644.829,515.621912.4554823.9484247.23934,230.421,241.265494.354
best1900.03921,793.922132.33138,754.532250.7131941.3216733.8431907.9131937.7392020.4889623.8862508.1532162.926
worst1901.559685,556.311,420.321,269,3208208.202210,717.953,779.761920.42511,894.3510,787.054951264,828.838599.616
std0.764786298,070.44638.779570,173.43118.72122,971.719,836.716.0830544892.1544478.15418,348.0830,181.342727.618
median1900.09297,333.55094.842528,045.54778.521104,959.928,774.431910.7412731.8532090.70938,892.858814.035607.437
rank11271351192431086
C17-F20mean2000.3122180.4522143.1852187.2142077.5292174.0842173.4262117.1682142.6432060.4752212.9572141.8572042.189
best2000.3122137.8142026.3442138.122061.1022089.5962082.5692039.4422109.9142051.2212157.6342121.6122030.104
worst2000.3122236.682247.1972233.7262103.1322269.3572241.6442207.72206.4992069.2192291.0892168.5832048.706
std042.30789102.047748.3244818.4976678.2130178.1024570.9596744.719397.75058566.6866723.978258.809191
median2000.3122173.6572149.5992188.5052072.9412168.6922184.7462110.7652127.082060.7292201.5522138.6172044.974
rank11181241095731362
C17-F21mean22002276.8882211.5962256.3712248.0352305.122292.262244.6312295.1462283.722341.3522299.7692282.443
best22002238.1722203.4672220.1192245.9452217.832215.4472200.0062291.6122203.1232326.6742292.9992222.304
worst22002301.1472232.7632276.9842250.1662344.5562329.3742290.3742299.3192316.2112355.9042306.1112311.539
std029.4602614.5393425.831021.83460160.8011553.2607452.932583.25567355.5828112.546346.62407441.70537
median22002284.1152205.0762264.1912248.0152329.0462312.112244.0722294.8262307.7732341.4152299.9822297.965
rank16254129310813117
C17-F22mean2300.0732634.352307.5612817.5652304.2172647.8192320.0132288.0582307.2392316.4612300.0162311.1642315.079
best23002534.3782303.6672642.0422300.7932425.3382316.0812240.7012301.0652311.23323002300.5362312.63
worst2300.292733.7622309.3682946.3952307.8682822.4972326.4262304.4942318.8332326.3132300.0632338.2122318.869
std0.14901390.411362.697547131.63083.057073182.05084.73760432.437268.393747.0972580.03237918.560282.740047
median23002634.6312308.6042840.9122304.1042671.7212318.7732303.5192304.532314.14823002302.9542314.408
rank31161341210159278
C17-F23mean2600.9192675.6022635.6032684.8562612.2062704.0762641.1972617.2052611.7152636.0032761.6452637.4692647.453
best2600.0032646.2622626.1982660.7662610.4652629.0432626.0352606.132607.0252626.7372706.832631.7212630.546
worst2602.872692.2432650.4462718.922614.3692741.3352658.5052626.8382617.2572644.1482878.0172647.3642654.735
std1.35610422.2721311.8034627.99141.98804652.1658717.880379.211135.5342877.90661482.5497.35187611.7669
median2600.4032681.9522632.8832679.8682611.9952722.9632640.1252617.9262611.2882636.5622730.8672635.3962652.266
rank11051131284261379
C17-F24mean2630.4882762.0712745.9242815.1962630.6272662.3112740.0352674.9632730.0732736.0132728.9692744.2032708.47
best2516.6772708.4472704.7582780.2722600.8332541.7062699.8992503.7662691.6352707.82509.4322723.6732568.696
worst2732.322835.7942776.6922882.8782652.692798.9782781.8652754.8042755.6342760.7952871.4582777.3922798.205
std119.657355.1802430.987348.150225.83034134.899137.08252119.630228.5600428.06907159.589926.51961100.7278
median2636.4772752.0212751.1242798.8172634.4912654.282739.1882720.642736.5122737.7282767.4932737.8742733.49
rank11211132394786105
C17-F25mean2932.6393104.8632916.5313222.132920.2383101.72911.5262923.7752937.7352933.3882923.9192924.8132949.13
best2898.0473047.4742898.9293166.0942913.3282911.8022793.4872907.6922925.1842913.2372909.092898.5692931.825
worst2945.7933232.5272948.1343280.5822926.5313537.0342954.5422943.6572945.4852950.8912943.3932946.4332959.685
std23.7154589.354622.2428148.573885.736208301.500480.8690419.046839.50157419.6559817.7549625.2636812.48227
median2943.3593069.7252909.533220.9232920.5472978.9822949.0382921.8762940.1342934.7122921.5962927.1262952.505
rank71221331114985610
C17-F26mean29003453.1432967.2073620.7092993.9763506.6473138.1982900.1243207.4663158.0723709.3722903.4172897.657
best29003178.7852821.7293348.1322893.3643105.5412922.9042900.0952958.2642910.1452821.7292821.7292737.911
worst29003636.3743116.1443904.3913231.2474052.7333484.2042900.1633747.6853721.2394119.5972991.9383076.415
std3.81 × 10−13208.2441172.5583246.3436163.2219475.7115252.0540.030928373.311388.1521617.672871.48489176.0918
median29003498.7082965.4773615.1572925.6473434.1573072.8422900.123061.9573000.4513948.08129002888.152
rank21051261173981341
C17-F27mean3089.5183190.8763115.1763208.7013102.2893165.2763178.2343091.2943111.93111.0423204.4123128.7033148.844
best3089.5183150.5673094.393121.2453091.8123100.3853164.8563089.683093.6583094.4563194.1763095.8963114.621
worst3089.5183259.3293166.453370.3633126.7973200.8413188.1333094.1023162.9633158.3213222.5533168.533198.444
std2.7 × 10−1348.596735.21142113.357716.9036646.745279.9780962.13632534.9995232.3810712.9699631.3726136.39941
median3089.5183176.8043099.9323171.5993095.2733179.9393179.9723090.6973095.4893095.6963200.463125.1933141.156
rank11161339102541278
C17-F28mean31003514.3543214.4183670.9743199.6523508.7823257.0353216.623305.9073289.2163394.8523272.8893223.029
best31003476.28831003601.7823156.2653362.6993144.2953100.1043179.6023195.8093383.7043164.8243137.728
worst31003541.1693344.0663720.923220.5773684.6453344.4953344.0663362.3063344.2693410.3433344.2463447.511
std029.78092110.881556.7958330.57208171.5013105.6768138.425687.1638272.78112.6783883.55076154.2956
median31003519.9793206.8033680.5973210.8823493.8923269.6753211.1543340.863308.3943392.683291.2433153.438
rank11231321164981075
C17-F29mean3132.2413306.7373260.4553336.7763191.9113219.8053314.6283191.5593244.1713199.943312.0943244.9053220.644
best3130.0763288.7393197.723276.3693160.3113161.0233219.0053140.5573181.053160.0383218.0753161.9353179.846
worst3134.8413320.5423328.7253392.9863227.2293278.4483438.5873261.7513340.7343219.4683555.083314.9063261.648
std2.54959913.6593769.371761.7922130.1181149.3395894.521352.6115678.0950228.5812167.040471.1523135.44834
median3132.0233308.8343257.6873338.8743190.0523219.8743300.463181.9643227.453210.1273237.6113251.3893220.542
rank11091335122741186
C17-F30mean3418.7341,893,250247,550.83,081,076348,132.8515,542.3832,010.7254,381.3784,805.751,366.55656,487.9325,092.31,280,488
best3394.6821,395,56788,283.28694,121.413,900.5494,669.514300.1996784.59528,699.4325,097.75504,846.85916.503441,195.3
worst3442.9072,702,421644,006.34,866,186513,544.81,089,4593,139,392968,316.21,135,56885,836.23838,197.2644,0372,916,441
std28.52304582,331.1272,203.31,794,176233,063.8434,164.21,581,899489,011.3534,148.830,469.33142,278.9377,756.81,198,358
median3418.6731,737,505128,956.83,381,998432,543439,020.492,175.2321,212.13987,477.947,266.11641,453.7325,207.8882,158.5
rank11231367104928511
Sum rank38318177350106286239116188191238183197
Mean rank1.31034510.965526.10344812.068973.6551729.8620698.24137946.4827596.5862078.2068976.3103456.793103
Total rank11241321110367958
Table 3. Optimization results of CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 30); background color has been used in order to make the table more reader-friendly and to separate the results of benchmark functions from each other; The best results are specified using bold.
Table 3. Optimization results of CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 30); background color has been used in order to make the table more reader-friendly and to separate the results of benchmark functions from each other; The best results are specified using bold.
POAWSOAVOARSAMPATSAWOAMVOGWOTLBOGSAPSOGA
C17-F1mean1002.19 × 10102613.2813.43 × 101022,347.551.49 × 10101.42 × 109448,4481.39 × 1095.15 × 1098,761,2101.17 × 1091.49 × 108
best1001.89 × 1010249.95073.06 × 101010,293.319.38 × 1091.12 × 109348,397.62.29 × 1083.25 × 1092127.1993140.7241.11 × 108
worst1002.74 × 10106400.5584.22 × 101033,968.452.04 × 10101.76 × 109570,375.94.19 × 1097.67 × 10930,586,2124.68 × 1092.05 × 108
std8.43 × 10−154.1 × 1092961.1815.49 × 10911,751.585.27 × 1093.38 × 108112,689.21.93 × 1091.9 × 10915,098,8632.4 × 10941,823,286
median1002.07 × 10101901.3073.22 × 101022,564.221.5 × 10101.4 × 109437,509.35.74 × 1084.83 × 1092,228,2512,665,3701.39 × 108
rank11221331194810576
C17-F3mean30081,233.4137,329.861,434.22969.266639,412.41193,462.91530.47434,798.5328,973.4379,991.4826,646.5139,514.4
best30074,187.6820,290.7247,586.37759.580437,343.78160,065.61213.13630,406.424,674.2768,874.5919,026.26105,582.7
worst30089,185.6848,259.6766,731.141181.83841,525.55222,246.52083.64138,857.7531,375.488,084.8234,209.61193,825.8
std07603.30412,317.329512.63194.75232152.06126,564.6396.54393561.0273099.1438899.4397103.86843,017.94
median30080,780.1440,384.4165,709.68967.824239,390.15195,769.81412.55934,964.9829,922.0281,503.2526,675.06129,324.6
rank11179281336510412
C17-F4mean458.56165454.175505.37118271.423487.41123867.585790.9394490.4413553.0887833.3965572.1942596.6992753.4735
best458.56163096.677486.30425328.848478.6691949.7377736.6592483.8844506.6625660.6389555.214506.2318709.9571
worst458.56167356.503520.526811,531.91505.56396379.264858.7068501.689579.24851167.212591.7098754.0269773.3006
std01813.38814.584862644.59712.68562355.04857.195538.08742232.75768232.987616.34613116.823430.48773
median458.56165681.76507.32678112.464482.7064070.67784.1958488.0959563.2219752.8677570.9265563.2689765.3182
rank11241321193510678
C17-F5mean502.4874788.675688.8314821.4349569.9836746.1304770.5924600.2459602.3281726.4291686.6635611.2496669.5814
best500.995772.1701658.1836799.8365551.0609722.4248746.244587.598568.2726707.4411670.418590.5804628.3879
worst503.9798806.4481737.7376849.8832588.9952774.1923781.9335629.526626.3604748.2691708.7927652.7534722.3131
std1.31928614.6549836.9702924.5443816.3149825.1352716.841520.1861329.4600720.2988217.6270728.9892639.98674
median502.4874788.041679.7021818.0099569.9392743.9522777.0961591.9299607.3398725.0032683.7216600.8324663.8123
rank11281321011349756
C17-F6mean600666.4978638.8884669.1329602.7229664.118663.4798620.3129609.9019636.0709647.051639.0789625.1306
best600665.3934637.2348664.7104601.6637651.3463654.3941610.402603.8971630.1431646.43628.9354619.2719
worst600667.5953641.4742674.6851603.8923671.6263667.9951630.8845615.81645.7316647.876648.0269628.9638
std6.74 × 10−140.9324841.881934.7317460.994599.7942266.3744739.9031495.035937.0385610.6546288.6807354.336506
median600666.5013638.4222668.568602.6678666.7496665.7649619.9825609.9503634.2045646.9491639.6766626.1434
rank11271321110436985
C17-F7mean733.4781204.4631078.1511238.467828.26571142.7961211.954834.3939860.77911019.025932.0193854.6732928.9018
best732.81861164.527981.56361227.053805.67581021.2891175.895789.8107801.9995945.5342892.7306836.9552895.7613
worst734.51991235.1181213.3611258.108873.39931268.0821279.518896.1273894.42261083.087990.8162877.4305974.77
std0.77445131.41462105.243514.209231.48748109.977149.4785946.7688641.5495973.8519744.2009417.9712833.98216
median733.28671209.1041058.8391234.354816.99391140.9071196.201825.8188873.3471023.739922.2653852.1535922.538
rank11191321012358746
C17-F8mean803.32981038.449925.75331069.623876.56541016.808992.9782878.8546877.7404986.4922935.6434904.0603956.231
best801.20231025.817900.58471052.536871.0406979.7928945.8382853.3074872.0014970.7384915.381894.3161942.8596
worst804.15741055.496943.55441092.03883.52031103.8661028.054903.9133884.23051014.274958.174917.1052973.4873
std1.45931913.9303620.1029320.641335.32723760.2013736.0483322.810965.46999619.6152619.4700210.4203815.81918
median803.97981036.242929.43711066.963875.8503991.7858999.0104879.0988877.3648980.4783934.5094902.4099954.2886
rank11261321110439758
C17-F9mean9009295.9934173.3429012.9571054.2179733.2169347.754699.4641882.5524964.8013552.3413108.7731228.1
best9007964.5043122.8338794.493924.85925988.1347180.183773.2491433.0663627.8663103.8891915.3651050.822
worst90010,549.74734.6489123.5561181.7613,095.6411,118.817107.1032539.5147419.8074243.2094661.2881404.044
std6.74 × 10−141104.682740.9093152.1923121.96233015.7622035.11652.669551.43731762.665515.47671196.496170.3034
median9009334.8854417.9459066.8891055.1249924.5459546.0073958.7511778.8144405.7663431.1342929.2191228.767
rank11171021312849653
C17-F10mean2293.2676412.9984935.8536985.3073713.2865861.9425808.814264.6864380.9767001.7274430.574591.0725513.346
best1851.7565855.5914355.066195.643430.1044624.4835082.6973975.7423968.2516711.8484160.2894401.9015126.171
worst2525.0276695.5835351.3127529.7134017.3366380.6256852.1314623.2264585.7737167.1964793.765012.5065916.111
std308.512389.0405476.6797581.2411280.4434851.4741802.03315.2446291.3034210.3384296.6351296.959387.4678
median2398.1426550.4095018.5197107.9383702.8536221.3295650.2054229.8884484.9397063.9324384.1174474.9425505.55
rank11171221093413568
C17-F11mean1102.9876454.8551232.6897540.9481158.9174470.636715.961279.8342016.2641842.9322604.3261225.6047847.806
best1100.9955343.5351176.996172.5321119.0883225.484877.4511243.5151342.7491510.0212056.1331200.7812992.546
worst1105.9777366.8731286.3788465.0771187.5066656.9799855.2631314.7173807.5052457.7773166.2561248.84414,582.53
std2.210814913.611446.857031078.65330.270071583.3492228.59641.354431228.211431.1576537.345423.862095101.831
median1102.4876554.5061233.6937763.0911164.5374000.0316065.5621280.5511457.4021701.9662597.4581226.3966908.076
rank11041229115768313
C17-F12mean1744.5535.88 × 10917,450,6989.13 × 10918,387.774.24 × 1092.07 × 1089,395,46743,971,4672.53 × 1081.67 × 1082,145,1956,431,729
best1721.814.86 × 1092,455,8428.13 × 10913,217.152.18 × 10952,999,4244,362,9724,268,2821.62 × 10832,203,594232,101.14,453,485
worst1764.9377.46 × 10942,619,2511.15 × 101023,387.015.55 × 1094.14 × 10822,731,84892,210,1624.39 × 1085.32 × 1084,264,8228,418,583
std20.698751.14 × 10918,158,2601.64 × 1094451.0611.49 × 1091.71 × 1089,145,70039,378,8931.29 × 1082.5 × 1081,786,6311,847,128
median1745.7335.59 × 10912,363,8498.44 × 10918,473.464.62 × 1091.81 × 1085,243,52439,703,7122.06 × 10851,055,5262,041,9296,427,424
rank11261321195710834
C17-F13mean1315.7914.78 × 109125,372.38.82 × 1091795.7961.22 × 109756,831.176,309.37631,742.673,765,67130,734.8827,296.789,967,217
best1314.5872.33 × 10969,505.054.63 × 1091565.81216,503,809357,223.230,683.3276,461.9251,226,74824,971.0711,416.682,704,385
worst1318.6466.69 × 109198,1701.08 × 10102245.824.25 × 1091,118,905153,076.91,959,9161.09 × 10844,874.7161,408.8121,439,242
std1.9887381.86 × 109548792.91 × 109315.57482.09 × 109407,890.359,034.82921,235.225,573,8199789.79723,630.358,246,276
median1314.9675.05 × 109116,907.19.92 × 1091685.7763.15 × 108775,59860,738.64245,296.167,531,34226,546.8718,180.817,862,621
rank11261321185710439
C17-F14mean1423.0171,583,673226,835.81,835,2171437.554981,560.31,857,98017,224.06445,626.9117,098.7955,849.215,909.451,677,408
best1422.014976,681.631,922.39922,514.91434.585702,426.830,232.294403.60428,944.9568,150.13620,319.32886.6277,836.4
worst1423.9932,004,673524,857.32,732,7111441.5551,386,5895,675,56229,161.92954,830.9134,697.71,443,08628,859.222,827,823
std0.830071494,194.3223,386.9894,383.33.225506322,490.92,662,65710,953.49482,778.633,529.54397,688.311,653.161,207,941
median1423.031,676,669175,281.71,842,8221437.038918,612.9863,063.417,665.35399,365.9132,773.6879,995.715,945.991,801,986
rank11061229134758311
C17-F15mean1503.1292.54 × 10831,519.174.99 × 1081599.83912,002,9264,212,35635,971.4213,215,3444,286,96313,666.14238.662798,198
best1502.4622.2 × 1089374.3914.31 × 1081568.3934,728,541194,271.720,925.8582,288.08973,598.49778.6521846.111146,710.5
worst1504.2652.81 × 10851,033.835.51 × 1081613.78427,920,92213,676,51859,349.9149,479,6808,069,60718,446.147667.4851,788,072
std0.87873631,317,09518,070.2160,593,99521.6872910,995,7016,568,82717,104.8524,843,4472,988,4233721.7392648.141771,437.9
median1502.8932.58 × 10832,834.225.07 × 1081608.5897,681,1191,489,31831,804.951,649,7044,052,32313,219.83720.525629,004.7
rank11251321086119437
C17-F16mean1663.4693880.7942780.7274429.791967.7273007.0363818.9442436.1452399.2363167.8063336.3482722.2772738.09
best1614.723612.0462400.5143787.8161713.4652646.3883186.8382248.5212266.92999.4853173.3932527.1522442.737
worst1744.1184112.8273219.2315016.9892173.2013223.2174523.2212651.182497.8723357.1153491.9132958.0753023.933
std63.65095235.5644345.9519676.9997211.8471263.5324566.1256178.2288118.7481160.2248145.9345225.7184288.5744
median1647.5193899.1522751.5814457.1771992.1223079.273782.8582422.442416.0863157.3123340.0432701.9412742.844
rank11271328114391056
C17-F17mean1728.0993134.6882354.0833389.1381842.6053022.1622667.3512025.5421901.8622120.6032395.9232238.5252088.621
best1718.7612631.5542231.9163070.8751748.3882142.7682266.4321981.8331792.0861929.6932310.342040.2112049.706
worst1733.6593757.1852449.7693953.4781894.9475325.8382938.7472151.7662027.2812368.2012522.6182569.3742147.494
std6.88979492.233298.22265410.911266.426751579.623295.410486.44565114.642190.9079105.9575243.785246.51756
median1729.9873075.0062367.3233266.0981863.5432310.0212732.1131984.2851894.0412092.2592375.3662172.2582078.642
rank11281321110436975
C17-F18mean1825.69623,729,5502,212,00927,283,9741885.21130,340,2754,927,404534,595.3350,552.71,391,192430,211.5114,852.63,044,058
best1822.5246,835,900235,823.58,821,1401866.681,112,8371,660,690134,742.365,780.31646,005.5241,319.281,807.062,376,553
worst1828.4246,083,7904,413,17053,602,0041896.44157,496,08410,169,8141,446,703900,247.21,748,911837,349.8136,2204,461,888
std2.77512817,820,5922,010,81719,503,68713.5853532,158,6163,755,642628,519403,355.5520,829.7282,413.824,434.14981,973
median1825.9220,999,2562,099,52123,356,3761888.86131,376,0903,939,556278,467.7218,091.71,584,927321,088.5120,691.72,668,895
rank11181221310647539
C17-F19mean1910.9894.85 × 10856,833.48.17 × 1081921.7312.46 × 10811,962,405784,633.23,367,6904,802,15968,581.1237,464.211,353,797
best1908.843.63 × 10812,363.245.9 × 1081919.4013,053,2691,556,87820,101.4259,431.522,492,76637,340.597629.39535,107.5
worst1913.0956.31 × 108126,214.81.24 × 1091925.5226.81 × 10820,655,5381,763,74110,858,9426,826,08392,183.96111,5812,404,782
std1.9843511.38 × 10850,937.842.95 × 1082.7304013.21 × 1088,945,361871,528.65,164,4472,189,23023,450.0650,925.51809,908.7
median1911.014.73 × 10844,377.777.2 × 1081921.0011.5 × 10812,818,601677,345.41,276,1944,944,89472,399.9715,323.221,237,648
rank11241321110689537
C17-F20mean2065.7872766.5272545.2052811.8322159.0692725.3782714.9892519.5882326.1172681.8482859.4762470.9112410.483
best2029.5212685.0942405.9582657.4492056.8982598.8672558.172320.3682175.0062617.4352539.352423.6322364.938
worst2161.1262858.2932738.5362900.1262248.6152848.4892862.1472876.0532465.3142781.1763277.452576.5452452.06
std65.3707672.89626145.7221111.862581.15997105.2842133.9402251.4598122.413580.36502318.382573.0509537.17676
median2036.252761.362518.1622844.8772165.3822727.0772719.8182440.9652332.0732664.392810.5522441.7332412.468
rank11171221096381354
C17-F21mean2308.4562572.9552420.1692621.2312357.3212499.3072562.7372390.0212377.2222466.0062528.9572414.7532463.582
best2304.0342493.0732232.5022554.4992348.4782307.5822498.1552359.3972347.9882455.0942512.9792398.0042435.213
worst2312.9872625.9812553.0582700.042371.3322612.7722617.7422414.7642389.9662475.4252559.8522426.2762506.717
std4.57984564.4505138.526765.1536210.30986138.334260.8991523.724220.4615210.2847221.5635914.1290131.25484
median2308.4022586.3842447.5582615.1932354.7362538.4372567.5262392.9612385.4672466.7522521.4992417.3672456.2
rank11261329114381057
C17-F22mean23007084.8655222.8816880.4732302.4647749.9136598.2743692.7692640.1035149.5725690.4044475.7542638.563
best23006799.1322302.5726013.1252301.6077555.3535792.7962305.4732531.2422656.6843732.1822432.7792575.489
worst23007530.7186351.1727752.2052303.9117841.7687316.8665415.5852863.8937913.536551.0036452.9172687.306
std0321.12632002.835767.69031.061178138.2371650.51431668.406156.26212939.8871349.6431898.88656.91863
median23007004.8056118.8916878.2812302.1697801.2656641.7173525.012582.6395014.0376239.2164508.662645.728
rank11281121310547963
C17-F23mean2655.0813109.4912885.3633155.9512647.4523113.6142987.1552724.9492736.5772865.8673597.1082863.0072926.383
best2653.7453036.8212792.6673110.282499.6583013.0312837.1652687.22719.6932847.6053505.5062834.5982901.442
worst2657.3773178.5523031.7393222.422703.7553280.563071.5592749.4032754.4742908.2173687.5112906.4012980.154
std1.69798868.35427107.577650.12905101.4466121.159106.883827.3770115.4083129.5325298.9431333.9444437.1707
median2654.63111.2952858.5243145.5512693.1983080.4333019.9472731.5962736.0712853.8233597.7082855.5132911.968
rank21071211193461358
C17-F24mean2831.4093241.5133119.2053326.3082875.6383212.4963073.0512894.4832907.3373010.2263283.043085.4873166.225
best2829.9923209.4813001.283250.6772862.5093119.8743018.4822853.5632896.6352990.263251.7483021.1763086.14
worst2832.3663308.1243251.0293457.9482881.3933255.8523095.3582913.9752913.1663041.0373315.2813182.4053233.528
std1.17659946.17052112.628798.478799.09528665.1912237.5470628.414987.69113722.2412828.8221371.0012270.21629
median2831.643224.2233112.2553298.3032879.3253237.1293089.1822905.1972909.7743004.8033282.5643069.1843172.615
rank11181321063451279
C17-F25mean2886.6983778.5642905.3234308.2592890.583380.1673051.9222906.0172976.9623045.872978.7712893.6913073.77
best2886.6913459.5432893.273796.3572884.8633059.8683021.0012884.8612944.7212943.5052968.9692887.4653059.545
worst2886.7074017.4392938.4784990.5552895.8273712.7323068.1792960.3743036.9933162.2812989.4012908.2953083.95
std0.007812239.223822.7185510.83815.088898327.751222.7851137.3199243.94737107.4548.66544410.0484311.07641
median2886.6983818.6372894.7714223.0612890.8153374.0333059.2542889.4182963.0673038.8482978.3572889.5023075.793
rank11241321195687310
C17-F26mean3578.658312.6086748.7218809.7953047.7477936.2657634.1544600.1674412.455561.1026871.6664652.0674267.871
best3559.8417952.1235663.9958103.9953043.5277376.997009.6954310.5054075.3184388.8215978.833551.5223939.486
worst3607.6868958.6987389.87710,063.253054.1498287.4948358.2535135.9894931.7216669.8417336.1445966.0814664.532
std23.3936481.0495778.935945.30175.206666401.4653568.6926395.2051374.98921073.57649.20891158.03312.2156
median3573.5368169.8056970.5078535.9663046.6578040.2897584.3344477.0864321.3795592.8747085.8444545.3324233.733
rank21281311110547963
C17-F27mean3207.0183548.9063332.7443680.5043213.4513432.9173393.8963227.6823243.2983301.0154702.1923267.7233421.148
best3200.7493499.1383259.8673442.3173202.0833318.5253250.5543212.2313234.8163234.554320.5463234.5443356.112
worst3210.6563633.3643396.8583923.4063229.7393644.3483500.7113249.913256.5023362.9584979.6583304.293460.169
std4.77373661.5873873.72286211.86413.2029149.0222110.343916.303749.51492654.62672331.908331.1227246.40822
median3208.3353531.5613337.1263678.1463210.9923384.3983412.1593224.2933240.9383303.2764754.2813266.033434.155
rank11171221083461359
C17-F28mean31004523.863240.5065294.8793196.5283996.7783386.9373232.7053521.4263582.8273457.1863294.1983509.347
best31004323.5823214.2755032.0363182.4593523.1013335.1253202.0183352.2423455.2193396.6653179.9413465.061
worst31004740.9473267.7855570.1813222.1934479.9953433.7613260.7263934.7633874.8873584.1993469.2293557.427
std2.7 × 10−13183.704222.46907264.043218.23778455.082444.0931324.78707284.7302202.240288.03279137.511545.08074
median31004515.4563239.9835288.6493190.733992.0093389.4323234.0393399.3493500.63423.9413263.813507.45
rank11241321163910758
C17-F29mean3353.755087.8264182.4355274.3163611.294953.5964822.9473768.5173724.0774334.4594802.5734044.324145.088
best3325.3854705.7043878.4164739.4493481.7744488.3264594.0793656.1013654.3194051.0464571.2633877.5673815.679
worst3370.7975496.1814365.5316006.4283731.9245708.044971.5773872.6033822.1084745.95022.5544253.4324448.855
std20.22231390.4582222.0926640.5091114.0033585.6057165.54494.1650776.66849304.191246.5089159.5929290.9356
median3359.415074.7114242.8965175.6943615.7314809.014863.0663772.6833709.944270.4464808.2374023.144157.909
rank11271321110438956
C17-F30mean5007.8541.2 × 1091,198,1832.37 × 1097256.37632,265,56832,925,1212,597,8605,356,35231,786,0611,900,575229,623.9590,194.9
best4955.4498.85 × 108423,016.41.7 × 1096158.42711,031,6396,566,732467,0711,195,43617,015,1101,659,1597179.109163,864.3
worst5086.3961.32 × 1092,121,1572.62 × 1099416.18475,389,65652,758,9123,719,13214,462,90666,673,3062,286,605867,053.81,128,316
std60.572142.17 × 108729,213.94.58 × 1081570.00730,004,96919,776,6541,489,7406,293,65524,022,890277,434.8436,680.2482,284
median4994.7851.3 × 1091,124,2792.58 × 1096725.44621,320,48936,187,4213,102,6192,883,53321,727,9151,828,26922,131.29534,300
rank11251321011789634
Sum rank3133418236157305284128151232231139204
Mean rank1.06896611.517246.27586212.448281.96551710.517249.7931034.4137935.20689787.9655174.7931037.034483
Total rank11261321110359847
Table 4. Optimization results of CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 50); background color has been used in order to make the table more reader-friendly and to separate the results of benchmark functions from each other; The best results are specified using bold.
Table 4. Optimization results of CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 50); background color has been used in order to make the table more reader-friendly and to separate the results of benchmark functions from each other; The best results are specified using bold.
POAWSOAVOARSAMPATSAWOAMVOGWOTLBOGSAPSOGA
C17-F1mean1004.98 × 10107,694,1637.8 × 10104,687,6373.17 × 10106.41 × 1093,383,8887.78 × 1091.73 × 10101.43 × 10102.11 × 1098.65 × 109
best1004.44 × 1010916,036.26.82 × 10101,809,1882.92 × 10103.78 × 1092,421,9055.61 × 1091.17 × 10101.14 × 10108.65 × 1088.24 × 109
worst1005.33 × 101020,360,5898.52 × 101011,885,8773.41 × 10109.59 × 1094,212,0131.07 × 10102.33 × 10101.71 × 10102.81 × 1099.32 × 109
std04.01 × 1098,873,6447.62 × 1094,964,3172.09 × 1092.82 × 109756,708.62.16 × 1095.76 × 1092.39 × 1098.78 × 1085.21 × 108
median1005.07 × 10104,750,0137.92 × 10102,527,7423.18 × 10106.13 × 1093,450,8177.44 × 1091.7 × 10101.43 × 10102.38 × 1098.53 × 109
rank11241331162710958
C17-F3mean300131,835.8121,939.9131,347.914,965.0290,792.26194,620.838,514.36108,129.981,796.38148,054.1120,427.1219,121.3
best300113,081.293,706.17119,156.712,934.3479,774.46146,792.730,547.595,001.0361,871.66133,70790,521.94182,644.6
worst300151,612.4148,352143,174.617,653.0696,796.99296,860.147,889.01121,37093,323.17167,270.6156,910.3251,776.2
std016,662.9225,349.1910,952.682175.5358080.82372,592.697427.94611,067.1614,750.7216,664.1429,574.4929,078.14
median300131,324.8122,850.8131,530.314,636.3593,298.79167,415.237,810.47108,074.485,995.34145,619.5117,138.1221,032.1
rank11089251236411713
C17-F4mean470.367912,353.44659.307319,835.21520.86416991.2071692.379547.50271273.3182403.232627.084924.10371347.608
best428.51279616.635640.99913,121.57484.60495610.8251108.464510.0485960.6691386.372200.404641.05131168.399
worst525.725214,063.24675.548723,684.52573.50459011.582005.852605.88851535.4394062.7872789.6591582.6771455.999
std50.914622040.52816.668234949.49943.267821475.615412.729142.51684267.11991208.173293.3794453.5134128.9881
median463.616812,866.95660.340721,267.38512.67356671.2121827.6537.03691298.5812081.8822759.135736.34321383.016
rank11241321183691057
C17-F5mean504.7261998.7714797.8741023.055696.78751037.896879.3746698.9245687.8787914.9902754.902740.7178826.1298
best503.9798971.6799772.49221007.523628.9187919.5867845.571637.7742665.0593880.0784711.1297695.3349801.0767
worst505.96981032.226832.41221033.829750.07261132.417900.3438792.9468711.594937.7921785.3274794.0634843.8261
std0.97840929.8448326.5501212.460252.17824106.249425.0771371.3188925.4873326.4900635.9503841.7261420.88025
median504.4773995.59793.29581025.434704.07931049.791885.7917682.4885687.4307921.0452761.5754736.7365829.8082
rank11171231394210658
C17-F6mean600678.7743649.8125680.4897609.3938674.4157681.0236631.1676618.8765653.1538647.9508644.3503640.179
best600676.2919645.8267678.6046607.0893657.5593676.5779622.7099614.1754642.6254643.8879642.4606629.4886
worst600682.8851654.3317682.9158612.4396688.2301687.8313651.0589627.047660.3253650.3646647.2969650.6368
std03.1265324.0356562.0727332.35365713.996345.02036513.869575.9321997.7791412.9271482.2451769.089876
median600677.9601649.5457680.2192609.0231675.9367679.8427625.4507617.1418654.8323648.7754643.8218640.2954
rank11181221013439765
C17-F7mean756.72981615.3161510.3911698.01982.20291524.2121545.2361003.0111012.8071355.0631298.9671123.671212.925
best754.75431594.6361451.3211630.929934.77381397.9071493.027971.7793993.25671249.7981158.917991.23951147.95
worst758.35221641.4381565.5931783.8081022.2131648.021617.3581028.4081028.6641406.0861406.261316.3641255.178
std1.59541120.0180349.7964167.4342543.39772119.799159.4977324.5674416.9283673.00096114.5055144.124148.62485
median756.90651612.5951512.3251688.651985.91221525.4611535.281005.9291014.6531382.1841315.3461093.5381224.285
rank11291321011348756
C17-F8mean805.7211315.0261069.9071337.934975.56521329.4531236.115985.028994.9791233.9951083.1541013.7041180.568
best802.98491267.3651031.0391311.392949.58861246.5891125952.6691965.89271187.0741075.982977.94431146.507
worst810.94461351.3191110.1421355.8051001.5721440.8411328.0751043.8911026.6541281.1781095.971068.2671200.173
std3.67273739.0829745.6487919.3205427.9542586.0619986.0315141.3543627.9758939.988499.25453243.7375524.0814
median804.47731320.711069.2231342.271975.54991315.1921245.693971.7758993.68481233.8651080.3311004.3011187.795
rank11161321210349758
C17-F9mean90030,080.0511,149.2530,239.592906.62731,546.0827,482.1416,432.755843.36920,055.758985.7488670.89810,745.45
best90028,896.4110,632.9628,419.951871.35729,089.2625,588.48863.0345099.75415,480.288200.1578043.9648867.123
worst90032,836.9711,866.9431,723.84145.52335,169.8132,120.6421,685.316634.45323,572.389691.8889834.37612,353.76
std9.53 × 10−141918.301548.16541606.899964.90712690.3393186.2336193.736818.58373451.708636.8787826.92511897.767
median90029,293.411,048.5530,407.32804.81330,962.6326,109.7517,591.335819.63520,585.179025.4748402.62610,880.47
rank11171221310839546
C17-F10mean4347.15711,532.147659.9312,543.536175.00810,518.1710,524.617108.2167941.72712,367.617886.2427215.48210,459.41
best3555.13210,983.867189.87512,178.385457.789682.8899353.4455887.0216184.11811,645.957154.4866946.72510,015.5
worst5099.79512,270.57977.58912,987.686806.40911,524.6211,596.388039.72812,231.37128658919.8487634.92311,036.08
std662.2242616.1048346.5361367.537628.0243833.15791005.392939.42872967.615603.7201761.6303437.5358
median4366.85111,437.17736.12812,504.046217.92110,432.5910,574.37253.0586675.70812,479.747735.3187140.1410,393.04
rank11151329103712648
C17-F11mean1128.43512,982.431525.24317,632.411233.8610,936.774425.9661494.6355284.7694439.17311,990.041580.22320,145.96
best1121.2511,976.461426.18315,706.171192.4989426.3173923.3661369.3253249.0874175.0311,255.981353.43111,853.62
worst1133.13213,620.521651.40319,094.941259.48913,091.475491.4371620.7549037.1934919.79213,565.411850.29326,952.06
std5.590435746.9688107.11571454.22830.743931622.687740.6431112.30042746.288352.44881090.518218.39016413.416
median1129.67813,166.371511.69317,864.271241.72710,614.664144.531494.2314426.3974330.93511,569.381558.58320,889.09
rank11141229638710513
C17-F12mean2905.1023.63 × 101061,090,7885.93 × 101011,987,9132.15 × 10101.1 × 10965,947,3607.97 × 1084.21 × 1091.81 × 1091.34 × 1091.7 × 108
best2527.3763.05 × 101025,877,1574.32 × 101011,292,4689.08 × 1099.08 × 10835,519,7201.25 × 1082.37 × 1095.95 × 10810,571,94753,696,816
worst3168.374.35 × 101094,397,3778.13 × 101012,550,0293.62 × 10101.5 × 1091.05 × 1081.48 × 1098.27 × 1093.25 × 1093.86 × 1092.36 × 108
std281.12326.05 × 10937,699,2461.8 × 1010602,9391.15 × 10102.78 × 10829,972,8876.95 × 1082.84 × 1091.13 × 1091.84 × 10982,068,331
median2962.3313.56 × 101062,044,3095.63 × 101012,054,5772.04 × 10109.97 × 10861,665,7417.91 × 1083.09 × 1091.69 × 1097.36 × 1081.96 × 108
rank11231321174610985
C17-F13mean1340.12.05 × 1010124,3063.59 × 101013,820.128.4 × 10979,029,047201,080.52.97 × 1084.87 × 10815,429,0913.97 × 10834,568,913
best1333.7811.18 × 101028,752.021.81 × 10107417.9884.46 × 10959,414,617125,544.11.35 × 1083.97 × 10826,219.8142,641.122,533,768
worst1343.0152.79 × 1010273,6495.16 × 101016,228.461.31 × 101089,739,751313,654.47.48 × 1086.66 × 10852,008,3161 × 10946,202,757
std4.3982967.27 × 109107,558.81.44 × 10104388.2473.74 × 10913,773,80982,205.873.09 × 1081.24 × 10825,476,6215.03 × 10810,856,438
median1341.8012.11 × 101097,411.53.69 × 101015,817.028.03 × 10983,480,911182,561.71.53 × 1084.43 × 1084,840,9142.93 × 10834,769,564
rank11231321174810596
C17-F14mean1429.45821,629,5581,019,17540,326,4601540.5972,239,1253,972,952159,269.4959,763.4721,378.312,622,182478,448.89,341,412
best1425.9957,065,176315,847.712,368,3561529.06591,649.73,517,514100,976.474,947.42594,856.72,861,955172,016.94,596,836
worst1431.93942,342,6952,427,16881,648,2761561.4173,551,3084,721,198308,929.31,851,840832,267.820,724,323766,155.916,077,250
std2.69231115,290,806985,718.230,267,91615.135391,260,429533,876.2102,826.2745,089.6127,191.38,317,365249,747.64,978,439
median1429.9518,555,180666,84133,644,6031535.9552,406,7713,826,549113,586956,132.9729,194.413,451,225487,811.28,345,781
rank11271328936511410
C17-F15mean1530.662.17 × 10931,917.243.49 × 1092139.0591.42 × 1098,268,173101,399.54,957,87558,803,8001.65 × 1089300.3997,146,830
best1526.3591.54 × 10919,800.392.72 × 1092028.2224.88 × 108762,321.942,127.593552834,481,11216,215.582567.1052,428,749
worst1532.9532.84 × 10958,561.654.13 × 1092261.163.09 × 10915,438,015151,119.913,057,93776,544,0596.38 × 10818,031.2215,510,530
std3.0135146.32 × 10818,454.036.41 × 108126.87561.24 × 1096,625,54949,760.115,836,23618,067,1253.25 × 1087059.5985,942,171
median1531.6642.15 × 10924,653.453.55 × 1092133.4281.05 × 1098,436,177106,175.33,369,01962,095,0159,951,5678301.6355,324,020
rank11241321185691037
C17-F16mean2062.8915581.0053973.1196665.6392638.3064212.7934921.7383117.3783114.9584131.2273641.0033128.5433606.047
best1728.6014843.2463647.3745095.0942465.8123691.9134094.7262941.7362798.3143806.3643373.112808.4073042.777
worst2242.6637043.2834340.849804.6282866.624493.6575496.2233348.2553623.0964333.4984005.4573509.4434074.333
std239.22271047.135333.22222.094183.478370.2944622.3757173.8423404.3577234.4206326.9663379.38461.5267
median2140.155218.7463952.135881.4182610.3964332.8015048.0013089.763019.2124192.5233592.7233098.1613653.54
rank11281321011439756
C17-F17mean2021.1516688.4853302.539549.6412469.2473635.1754115.5612895.8342810.653794.8193520.8463129.6613324.428
best1900.435149.5292912.3597040.0352391.622961.8293704.8172417.0942698.0093243.613124.0392948.3983112.599
worst2138.2678109.5733761.45512,292.242533.3134035.8474319.8453292.783057.2914131.3743794.7173425.6053513.462
std137.86441253.581404.46412220.6764.57045478.8141295.3164373.1915170.8534403.7638294.9474232.6045193.1295
median2022.9546747.4193268.1549433.1432476.0283771.5124218.792936.7322743.653902.1473582.3143072.3213335.826
rank11261329114310857
C17-F18mean1830.6263,127,3972,010,96193,646,40222,187.129,230,90637,674,6202,202,2904,773,5936,839,2337,013,146687,616.17,898,737
best1822.23950,515,236260,770.142,104,5333423.8592,627,75710,203,3431,297,604910,388.14,703,7203,316,065293,249.42,830,469
worst1841.67374,439,1113,683,1001.3 × 10833,031.583,511,81568,196,7173,428,0959,521,9539,506,69613,105,7331,127,37918,988,156
std8.36526710,614,2001,781,08944,344,96113,284.6838,179,56929,459,3241,046,9514,615,2102,086,9604,583,614392,927.47,665,119
median1829.28563,777,6202,049,9871.01 × 10826,146.5215,392,02636,149,2112,041,7304,331,0156,573,2595,815,394664,918.14,888,162
rank11241321011567839
C17-F19mean1925.1852.27 × 109216,9023.2 × 1092055.8952.23 × 1095,705,7654,273,969970,130.242,276,479377,244.8328,564.4827,342.9
best1924.4371.08 × 10976,334.32.16 × 1092004.9098,154,682858,452.13,253,382475,008.935,891,244217,067.22737.203647,243.5
worst1926.1213.79 × 109447,0063.96 × 1092081.0446.51 × 10913,447,6945,300,3481,491,45553,685,590826,313.6820,181.31,120,630
std0.8127811.17 × 109165,222.78.22 × 10835.73052.99 × 1095,556,410858,370.3436,484.88,135,776307,601.2400,334.2229,452.6
median1925.0912.11 × 109172,133.83.34 × 1092068.8131.2 × 1094,258,4584,271,074957,028.339,764,541232,799.3245,669.4770,749.2
rank11231321198710546
C17-F20mean2160.1723551.923081.8713775.3392576.4513223.1893486.4683093.5132546.6113507.6873729.6363101.1673000.111
best2104.4233261.6692609.0663531.4442331.2682834.5423227.9252888.4552368.843394.2913515.3852752.0852935.112
worst2323.8913694.0963519.5883942.0032804.9263426.0543967.933476.7462745.713642.9593955.5423240.5333098.743
std112.1118208.9768401.3669178.7862209.3622272.2615345.9497275.9436195.8616112.6999185.5858239.609875.4523
median2106.1863625.9573099.4163813.9542584.8063316.083375.0093004.4262535.9463496.7483723.8073206.0262983.294
rank11151338962101274
C17-F21mean2314.8952882.0292683.5982914.2932427.1132852.8132845.1912531.1262487.3192739.1992756.1152602.4932678.824
best2309.0452850.9552580.9352825.6972410.8752762.7822748.6232500.8822440.9232720.2862695.8332541.5862658.424
worst2329.6832913.7412843.2632985.9332446.7772994.2442924.652561.9632522.5422775.6142788.0922694.3532694.385
std10.154631.61239116.334979.1337718.72946102.282177.9572331.95235.4853126.7256543.5290869.3548118.71277
median2310.4262881.712655.0982922.7722425.42827.1132853.7462530.8292492.9052730.4482770.2682587.0172681.244
rank11271321110438956
C17-F22mean3095.16913,039.499826.90914,101.284984.11612,002.2211,940.928030.3677926.01513,639.7110,070.58665.8457892.464
best230012,675.967743.33513,787.622316.9111,514.6211,300.896733.0526917.14513,106.759686.1427857.3683745.8
worst5480.67813,528.2311,335.1714,662.717520.84312,392.9112,442.248996.7248664.38614,007.710,745.479334.59811,904.18
std1633.424370.30831769.517416.51272773.424454.7955493.6015974.6443753.354395.6171479.7048655.93214664.853
median230012,976.8810,114.5713,977.395049.35612,050.6712,010.288195.8458061.26513,722.199925.1928735.7067959.936
rank11171321095412863
C17-F23mean2743.3543650.7323205.0963714.7082866.693585.9013588.0392950.2112976.33196.584438.6053277.0743264.832
best2729.9883582.133133.3033675.6282856.8073406.4523431.6292915.3672908.1343122.4794273.6433218.4863152.818
worst2752.6573734.7273274.6373747.7382884.3933873.1093674.9033010.7143095.7073254.5284584.9363325.9633382.982
std10.2878868.2877169.3751831.1759812.52007227.7969111.727646.4488584.3863456.19525131.123858.5393596.7561
median2745.3873643.0363206.2233717.7332862.783532.0233622.8112937.3812950.6793204.6564447.923281.9233261.764
rank11161229103451387
C17-F24mean2919.0434010.9983421.3194243.9793042.8093837.263689.1543101.8683155.6553366.4634156.0813378.9723549.094
best2909.0463793.6353327.5193829.9673017.923756.0283595.1133069.7593072.3173300.914126.6923243.2973515.085
worst2924.4124494.6553578.9695255.4363075.3993956.3913733.163132.0263264.2013416.8194199.7263512.2983633.155
std7.008951334.167112.0403699.636826.2821594.7730566.0271727.4601882.1619655.8213934.99998122.771757.76433
median2921.3583877.8523389.3953945.2573038.9583818.313714.1713102.8433143.0513374.0624148.9533380.1473524.068
rank11171321093451268
C17-F25mean2983.1457719.4083147.64910,531.673054.7485532.0083969.863043.7053868.3984154.6634073.433099.7953880.771
best2980.2356438.1943123.4978547.6553036.9524583.5893624.6283014.2133703.6853744.23779.3063061.5623789.69
worst2991.8318529.6233186.33511,749.483069.9826433.1874229.7973059.6544040.1074654.3614629.9153141.1043983.99
std5.947342952.125627.724781545.06313.98796816.7002264.608421.23968180.3098472.2477410.909241.1499282.36824
median2980.2577954.9083140.38210,914.773056.0285555.6284012.5083050.4763864.8994110.0463942.2493098.2563874.702
rank11251331182610947
C17-F26mean3776.43212,485.249857.96413,316.653397.49711,251.3412,257.595477.8496089.9178800.12410,340.327448.7858179.371
best3748.80712,285.69425.48112,793.33226.7889462.74911,475.075063.4355759.1058117.11910,039.976963.8186593.561
worst3793.64312,649.410,292.5614,122.223644.80812,325.113,716.485703.7916397.5699439.72910,681.347925.86610,230.13
std19.97732172.6557364.1075593.2476194.15461275.0121021.872296.969342.6607569.9985274.3567443.62321775.382
median3781.63912,502.999856.90913,175.533359.19511,608.7511,919.415572.0846101.4978821.82410,319.997452.7277946.896
rank21281311011347956
C17-F27mean3251.264558.0723757.2264717.9413363.1254482.3454271.9883345.0373579.7063740.7077336.4913584.3344258.896
best3227.7014286.4853715.2254397.9223268.383875.9723783.5423308.4673538.7283574.1057117.8823358.8754162.671
worst3313.6314750.0013808.9774953.4753444.894909.9194755.5683401.6243618.5893892.627638.4723799.694378.755
std42.83953208.242345.64993270.563575.15709460.5976467.479340.9124940.33389144.8357255.2247204.297694.75696
median3231.8544597.93752.3514760.1833369.6144571.7444274.4213335.0293580.7533748.0517294.8053589.3854247.08
rank11171231092461358
C17-F28mean3258.8497875.9953541.3289941.8463337.8086631.384578.2893281.7824224.9344939.0684779.5773776.844762.924
best3258.8497154.5553471.6468859.8183306.7325466.2884063.5993263.2839964413.7514728.1873507.8024548.706
worst3258.8499699.3683617.36612,815.673375.9697830.3624775.2763297.8054512.7485401.2914880.9714213.0284921.505
std01258.6873.851991971.41534.880361231.024353.529117.38953247.5649416.815371.31116313.4874185.5852
median3258.8497325.0283538.1519045.9463334.2666614.4364737.143283.0214195.4934970.6154754.5753693.2654790.743
rank11241331172610958
C17-F29mean3263.03812,013.085155.33616,966.753965.8616335.8548144.7084593.8554625.5476027.6327414.2084596.6445701.722
best3247.1328097.3795034.3529211.0893662.3255959.5155651.2184217.7544449.5015261.0596198.5584399.6415441.194
worst3278.78716,305.795272.73626,537.54170.5486783.87510,517.495099.0994881.1936868.2599561.8054667.7656212.377
std17.929663881.513100.19327927.577236.6456351.41292058.726378.9936203.6804780.79561556.614134.9533371.68
median3263.11611,824.575157.12716,059.224015.2856300.0148205.0614529.2824585.7475990.6046948.2344659.5855576.659
rank11261329113581047
C17-F30mean623,575.22.73 × 10918,352,9404.58 × 1091,487,6691.38 × 1091.32 × 10858,942,8911.16 × 1082.51 × 1081.54 × 1084,120,58448,887,890
best582,411.62.11 × 10911,254,5792.81 × 1091,154,9701.7 × 10889,570,53653,274,37856,426,4701.75 × 1081.18 × 1082,907,48139,468,838
worst655,637.43.71 × 10925,121,4127.19 × 1092,358,7802.81 × 1091.83 × 10867,789,1401.73 × 1083.18 × 1082.02 × 1085,692,79468,578,838
std33,550.877.17 × 1086,997,2501.94 × 109599,3061.4 × 10948,032,6606,469,13060,378,26761,457,44936,165,6981,416,29813,842,435
median628,125.92.56 × 10918,517,8864.16 × 1091,218,4631.28 × 1091.29 × 10857,354,0231.18 × 1082.56 × 1081.48 × 1083,941,03043,751,942
rank11241321186710935
Sum rank3033516636763294269112144248254150207
Mean rank1.03448311.551725.72413812.655172.17241410.137939.2758623.8620694.9655178.5517248.7586215.1724147.137931
Total rank11261321110348957
Table 5. Optimization results of CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 100); background color has been used in order to make the table more reader-friendly and to separate the results of benchmark functions from each other; The best results are specified using bold.
Table 5. Optimization results of CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 100); background color has been used in order to make the table more reader-friendly and to separate the results of benchmark functions from each other; The best results are specified using bold.
POAWSOAVOARSAMPATSAWOAMVOGWOTLBOGSAPSOGA
C17-F1mean1001.39 × 10113.19 × 1091.94 × 10114.33 × 1081.05 × 10115.23 × 101054,852,2294.76 × 10107.6 × 10101.14 × 10111.67 × 10104.68 × 1010
best1001.36 × 10111.55 × 1091.91 × 10113.28 × 1089.25 × 10104.94 × 101045,706,3874.13 × 10107.24 × 10101.04 × 10111.12 × 10104.43 × 1010
worst1001.43 × 10114.59 × 1091.96 × 10115.47 × 1081.17 × 10115.85 × 101064,235,2965.39 × 10108.38 × 10101.21 × 10112.27 × 10105.28 × 1010
std1.19 × 10−142.93 × 1091.28 × 1092.3 × 1091.09 × 1081.06 × 10104.32 × 1099,293,9596.15 × 1095.41 × 1097.44 × 1096.48 × 1094.2 × 109
median1001.39 × 10113.31 × 1091.95 × 10114.29 × 1081.05 × 10115.06 × 101054,733,6164.77 × 10107.4 × 10101.14 × 10111.64 × 10104.5 × 1010
rank11241331082791156
C17-F3mean300356,822.5272,039.4268,843.8131,575.1302,970657,547.9388,370.4306,828.3246,796286,153.2450,679.2481,038.8
best300325,159.2265,681.1259,332.9100,728.8242,793.7575,512.9322,609.5280,769.3231,497.7264,862.3341,428.2461,303.6
worst300373,192.5278,132.7274,437.1159,198.2345,991.9761,479.5464,924.1336,002.8261,138.9313,191.9632,641.2496,677.8
std023,069.085405.0637264.19426,086.314488882,337.7274,421.5530,350.0812,441.7320,597.91138,498.816,046.35
median300364,469272,171.8270,802.5133,186.8311,547.2646,599.6382,974305,270.6247,273.7283,279.4414,323.8483,086.9
rank19542713108361112
C17-F4mean602.172237,200.131395.35162,656.05949.099613,432.069212.415733.95043820.9819046.23328,507.722159.9217767.034
best592.067634,244.381188.76956,805.13853.81088822.3247863.571686.57762959.0358625.05722,690.111346.9027344.033
worst612.276940,775.071525.89369,800.051048.06517,828.2210,104.17782.70165694.4199775.51432,247.612697.8978247.69
std11.983932884.073157.79925534.34296.646463822.612978.979441.154351294.375562.11314740.337598.0332430.9479
median602.172236,890.531433.3762,009.52947.261413,538.859440.961733.26113315.2368892.18129,546.572297.4437738.206
rank11241331092681157
C17-F5mean512.93451713.4561158.3561688.3891085.4161839.1811587.5341094.0131050.6951616.1551176.3871240.0321378.034
best510.94451698.0591148.2071659.418980.7441818.631507.6161004.0611003.781593.4861148.271158.1311257.35
worst514.92441722.7991165.8491716.6861156.1851863.1081712.4151151.8541090.711640.1481202.5161381.781450.591
std1.86575211.031347.63560129.6484486.7659221.1934591.2658568.3564438.9292519.5837129.03695107.978989.24287
median512.93451716.4831159.6841688.7261102.3671837.4931565.0521110.0681054.1441615.4931177.3821210.1091402.098
rank11251131394210678
C17-F6mean600686.2561650.1087684.8479630.2372689.9604684.22660.4596632.5629665.8413651.8302649.7509651.0804
best600684.0572646.8065680.8364627.1287679.9345676.264654.9711628.4932658.6757649.7166643.883645.0896
worst600688.314653.57687.2264635.5005696.8682698.2933665.5673637.7053670.1556655.2582654.5349655.6
std01.9734122.8634242.9008474.0760068.39435310.155734.6748264.1038135.6387442.5108445.1967385.435079
median600686.3265650.0291685.6644629.1598691.5195681.1614660.6501632.0266667.2669651.173650.2929651.8159
rank11251121310839746
C17-F7mean811.3923078.5492647.8763172.91642.8852936.9413055.0831776.6541789.2262661.2992681.9232157.2692236.865
best810.02053007.3622517.8223098.6011595.3632790.6162956.241643.8581635.0042543.2132575.2341939.2032154.734
worst813.17263162.2452757.13235.9121709.0123075.2543198.9871877.4041903.2832758.2462858.6352254.4152416.55
std1.50073265.36608123.011560.6282250.50046131.9066114.42199.82659115.261191.24165126.9898153.3934124.6292
median811.18743072.2942658.2913178.5431633.5822940.9463032.5531792.6761809.3082671.8682646.9122217.732188.088
rank11271321011348956
C17-F8mean812.4372111.5141558.9992155.8661311.2872093.0962028.2631330.4751380.2481975.4471630.4581533.4991796.9
best808.95462070.7561514.0172136.2821172.1082037.0431865.0231206.2391294.8091922.6021563.681500.0571755.117
worst816.91432160.4491581.3052168.6071397.3162164.1092153.6861478.2891494.1392018.8681736.5271610.4971838.762
std3.49050339.4689331.8251714.21747101.692462.6837151.6583115.307892.2440742.925379.3034753.0292136.57804
median811.93952107.4271570.3362159.2871337.8622085.6162047.1731318.6871366.0211980.1591610.8131511.7211796.86
rank11261321110349758
C17-F9mean9007267321,463.4262,321.6818,200.5397,087.1161,930.1247,807.5429,078.9260,047.0319,113.9226,597.1537,150.16
best90064,890.117,889.4760,247.6216,949.5279,614.1548,186.5940,332.6918,044.0257,514.8417,799.9922,511.3433,658.16
worst90083,934.424,142.2364,020.1618,766.82121,06978,018.0654,357.1239,496.2561,393.3220,131.3929,609.3441,831.24
std9.53 × 10−148439.8432676.2261688.451863.457717,876.9415,298.975930.98610,756.321817.9861001.3683241.4333525.3
median90070,933.7421,910.9962,509.4618,542.993,832.6560,757.9248,270.1729,387.7160,639.9819,262.1527,133.9536,555.61
rank11241121310869357
C17-F10mean11,023.0426,654.9615,020.327,732.3413,324.3925,915.9425,070.0615,849.7714,388.127,740.1816,039.6815,915.9623,258.07
best9625.60826,353.312,995.8327,038.6212,781.3525,353.3324,414.6915,359.0813,258.6526,507.1814,606.6614,564.8622,622.29
worst11,858.8127,030.5716,910.9528,251.0514,141.5826,715.1326,344.5416,388.9514,902.2328,667.3716,907.4316,756.6423,837.44
std995.114320.09391798.552577.2643634.1048654.8937901.4097496.5617784.6955931.14231107.631971.114511.2961
median11,303.8726,617.9915,087.2127,819.8513,187.3225,797.6524,760.515,825.5214,695.7727,893.0916,322.3216,171.1723,286.27
rank11141221095313768
C17-F11mean1162.329134,612.352,588.01168,880.74126.68153,605.52170,451.23961.41971,430.1658,834.42141,339.742,727.78113,994.6
best1139.568104,512.547,266.62129,243.63290.2224,535.8199,263.933471.13459,361.449,651.74117,805.819,535.887,032.77
worst1220.662156,634.362,800.07240,550.64901.72376,617.73274,712.44194.31380,462.4874,953.97164,872.987,137.65157,108.2
std40.0933823,016.427379.83851,504.53711.699722,173.1783,830.02340.2749275.10611,393.9319,966.4931,050.7331,530.95
median1144.542138,651.150,142.67152,864.44157.39156,634.27153,914.34090.11572,948.3755,365.98141,340.132,118.83105,918.8
rank11051236132871149
C17-F12mean5974.8058.62 × 10105.38 × 1081.4 × 10112.13 × 1084.64 × 10101.08 × 10102.72 × 1089.35 × 1091.79 × 10105.46 × 10108.25 × 1091.01 × 1010
best5383.9056.13 × 10102.85 × 1081.05 × 10111.19 × 1082.38 × 10108.75 × 1091.73 × 1086.48 × 1091.41 × 10104.74 × 10101.07 × 1099.19 × 109
worst6570.1999.61 × 10108.59 × 1081.63 × 10112.55 × 1087.7 × 10101.23 × 10104.27 × 1081.11 × 10102.47 × 10106.42 × 10101.57 × 10101.19 × 1010
std507.86931.71 × 10102.54 × 1082.73 × 101065,009,2082.28 × 10101.54 × 1091.15 × 1082.06 × 1094.98 × 1097.21 × 1096.83 × 1091.27 × 109
median5972.5599.37 × 10105.04 × 1081.47 × 10112.39 × 1084.25 × 10101.1 × 10102.44 × 1089.9 × 1091.65 × 10105.34 × 10108.12 × 1099.62 × 109
rank11241321083691157
C17-F13mean1407.282.28 × 101080,574.273.49 × 101079,471.011.75 × 10104.27 × 108289,792.77.74 × 1082.3 × 1097.14 × 1091.44 × 1091.43 × 108
best1371.1451.98 × 101056,979.612.7 × 101034,182.781.24 × 10103.04 × 108255,398.666,792,6211.59 × 1094.39 × 1091.59 × 1081.12 × 108
worst1439.9352.53 × 1010109,768.53.95 × 1010197,022.92.09 × 10105.78 × 108337,817.32.05 × 1092.79 × 1099.17 × 1092.61 × 1091.72 × 108
std35.691632.91 × 10922,990.785.96 × 109809683.7 × 1091.45 × 10837,057.419.39 × 1085.59 × 1082.05 × 1091.24 × 10931,895,575
median1409.022.3 × 101077,774.483.65 × 101043,339.181.83 × 10104.14 × 108282,977.34.92 × 1082.42 × 1097.5 × 1091.5 × 1091.44 × 108
rank11231321164791085
C17-F14mean1467.50937,197,4545,466,68565,255,52274,687.097,286,84611,918,1942,485,3527,878,52411,393,2449,418,373667,883.98,603,616
best1458.80332,123,3843,315,15159,516,45921,503.763,309,9746,860,812750,232.94,983,3908,488,7517,259,554317,528.24,814,013
worst1472.73342,492,3129,074,79171,434,249158,404.614,217,19616,291,5583,420,97411,810,97114,559,37114,124,9531,386,46812,674,056
std6.2091974,677,9642,605,9725,879,91862,965.714,935,9703,982,5711,222,8733,073,8553,260,2473,259,370499,763.23,360,478
median1469.2537,087,0604,738,39965,035,69059,419.985,810,10812,260,2042,885,1017,359,86711,262,4278,144,493483,769.88,463,198
rank11251326114710938
C17-F15mean1609.8931.26 × 101069,370.461.93 × 101046,148.19.88 × 10957,422,101103,9034.11 × 1089.76 × 1081.02 × 1092.73 × 10810,394,502
best1551.1541.17 × 101056,780.131.38 × 101013,517.632.05 × 10831,981,63871,184.326,937,6783.26 × 1084.07 × 10850,630.116,702,420
worst1652.2941.42 × 101087,025.882.4 × 101069,938.591.85 × 10101.1 × 108152,770.11.23 × 1092.08 × 1091.3 × 1091.08 × 10917,711,015
std45.35861.12 × 10914,851.335.23 × 10924,462.78.16 × 10936,744,16036,893.95.72 × 1087.92 × 1084.25 × 1085.52 × 1085,136,228
median1618.0631.23 × 101066,837.921.97 × 101050,568.081.04 × 101043,686,51995,828.731.93 × 1087.47 × 1081.18 × 1097,071,7078,582,287
rank11231321164891075
C17-F16mean2711.79516,012.756339.76619,049.545020.83312,428.0513,797.855899.5385494.1149913.0529553.8955807.7919132.825
best2171.6915,028.65463.70815,158.154904.96810,251.4111,324.275278.2174983.3649463.0098315.0945671.2738374.525
worst3397.32616,418.686926.98221,180.985123.1914,905.4915,213.896292.9865983.62910,735.6110,910.65919.1269778.948
std523.7732679.046642.82862818.137118.67121964.9041809.969491.0011564.8153614.62261208.589105.6406647.8327
median2639.08116,301.876484.18719,929.515027.58812,277.6614,326.626013.4745504.7319726.7949494.9425820.3839188.914
rank11261321011539847
C17-F17mean2716.5643,460,6905278.9776,807,6974297.894179,834.714,457.774560.735000.7347657.138,547.085486.5936354.464
best2275.0211,014,5865040.9251,845,5394049.3248854.7369018.6154149.1134121.38750825,526.425266.8466299.009
worst3429.1277,873,1395666.05315,664,2064526.101476,948.724,245.764922.1776445.9837893.55762,324.995629.1116460.004
std528.38983,320,761301.27676,677,440227.8255210,069.57045.023392.01881070.156175.19516,751.95158.868173.75885
median2581.0542,477,5185204.4664,860,5214308.075116,767.612,283.344585.8154717.7867613.42233,168.455525.2076329.422
rank11251321193481067
C17-F18mean1903.74647,894,5552,310,22784,518,490190,659.112,221,8369,843,7954,025,8438,988,75813,289,9669,641,8925,279,3894,952,111
best1881.1521,698,2111,148,96132,805,132133,021.74,578,0307,321,9902,981,5562,830,8289,793,1464,445,3403,260,6043,970,706
worst1919.92186,612,4953,652,4151.55 × 108343,343.424,974,81611,661,3486,762,30314,525,42318,785,30621,434,6767,605,8047,169,003
std19.9042528,481,1481,164,99452,706,461104,8719,439,2392,031,1811,881,0894,942,1163,967,2758,225,8062,073,7721,546,019
median1906.95541,633,7572,219,76675,362,668143,135.69,667,25010,195,9213,179,7579,299,39012,290,7066,343,7765,125,5744,334,367
rank11231321094711865
C17-F19mean1972.8391.04 × 10102,362,4911.83 × 1010230,108.64.14 × 1091.1 × 10813,654,8702.96 × 1085.49 × 1081.3 × 1092.21 × 10810,503,303
best1967.1399.2 × 109904,673.41.34 × 101048,684.431.84 × 10943,630,3807,964,3832,348,6412.38 × 1082.33 × 10836,773,5615,362,045
worst1977.8691.23 × 10104,348,7222.28 × 1010389,547.48.23 × 1091.85 × 10821,704,0358.9 × 1081.26 × 1092.45 × 1094.79 × 10818,995,339
std4.6597591.43 × 1091,495,1194 × 109145,313.22.9 × 10967,427,8216,966,4814.26 × 1084.94 × 1081.13 × 1092.2 × 1086,213,630
median1973.1741.01 × 10102,098,2851.86 × 1010241,101.23.25 × 1091.05 × 10812,475,5301.46 × 1083.48 × 1081.25 × 1091.85 × 1088,827,915
rank11231321165891074
C17-F20mean3192.046567.7945653.1566776.3894267.7816355.0556365.4165352.8715569.3116533.955772.4714990.7575732.389
best2806.7626354.0575417.3946712.364167.7125784.0316063.4485126.3434577.8315811.0945463.8994325.7365172.25
worst3662.1216787.2485871.4576910.4344349.5347064.4726720.6775744.8216391.8216826.525934.1245777.5576089.943
std451.2632195.8611240.077193.2698777.59644573.7388296.3053281.3659910.8455496.684216.9234643.6342451.9964
median3149.6396564.9365661.8876741.3814276.946285.8586338.7695270.1595653.7966749.0935845.9314929.8695833.682
rank11261329104511837
C17-F21mean2342.1553936.2553428.2724037.8472744.7183800.8883885.3273076.1442861.8863461.9874286.7663358.8793224.172
best2338.6893897.7273253.0863974.8272708.0063681.1233637.3193018.6632793.4843329.0613827.7643203.0683194.14
worst2346.0153994.3663542.8994085.1162773.2893882.2914076.8843183.7162907.1163613.6824655.7933653.0963265.66
std3.46009847.67605128.237849.1471428.36417101.2622202.30175.9434149.60032124.534354.7142209.538131.7634
median2341.9593926.4653458.5514045.7232748.7883820.0693913.5533051.0992873.4723452.6024331.7543289.6763218.445
rank11171229104381365
C17-F22mean1173928,172.5918,735.1229,538.1317,455.1527,345.225,999.8316,295.921,263.129,437.2119,478.0920,105.8125,721.35
best11,119.0827,395.5517,607.6529,162.0316,460.9426,279.3624,653.6315,563.0717,435.8228,520.718,881.3318,940.9124,806.45
worst12,601.628,629.6720,191.7630,067.5618,790.8128,390.9327,133.2516,899.9530,390.2629,867.7819,882.7121,371.6126,403.85
std670.4039589.63651219.607397.65511012.878888.7461118.426683.21846344.73641.5669435.41761030.321823.7796
median11,617.6728,332.5718,570.5429,461.4617,284.4327,355.2626,106.2116,360.2918,613.1729,680.1719,574.1620,055.3725,837.55
rank11141331092712568
C17-F23mean2877.6974909.2743897.4174911.0663224.4275009.2284754.8623379.5133490.3363981.027024.7934523.7274024.355
best2872.1074698.6583829.7334686.83212.1444375.1854635.5953302.1363462.5193935.6956528.4474088.1713968.4
worst2884.0135155.5343968.8065086.3353250.7825868.4874874.4693478.9083528.3314046.27376.6764755.1324077.859
std5.357202210.039966.98634170.029518.22406686.4955117.747876.6124530.867547.9752393.8005308.343661.38807
median2877.3344891.4513895.5644935.5653217.3914896.6194754.6923368.5043485.2473971.0927097.0254625.8014025.582
rank11051121293461387
C17-F24mean3327.4077654.0695028.8189295.8193650.56109.3595866.7573860.6674131.9494512.9359557.4075518.1075031.28
best3295.5186080.8714849.8546396.6323611.8525694.2345511.2853798.23936.7044319.7549006.7425206.9284959.558
worst3357.9918722.2395178.95311,219.823708.3116378.7616406.1393951.0434307.4234701.79210,990.065915.5385169.385
std30.422431296.2149.27552398.247.49002300.5585399.060273.00364199.5073160.6953982.4706324.029398.16265
median3328.0597906.5835043.2319783.413640.9186182.2215774.8023846.7134141.8344515.0979116.4145474.9824998.089
rank11161221093451387
C17-F25mean3185.23213,234.483979.52418,274.733601.9619249.2476611.6793371.0935886.4127946.0719713.3283980.4087098.013
best3137.37112,601.163665.16316,991.173447.5318695.576085.7613309.865764.0286909.918992.4423756.7036495.826
worst3261.57114,707.244270.31321,165.623717.0869610.9096926.4383431.0566217.5179331.7810,981.674331.9377700.584
std61.529491018.704255.76342022.54115.5731424.0722391.374151.16903227.28541137.891902.3143285.8758640.5351
median3170.99212,814.753991.3117,471.073621.6129345.2556717.2593371.7275782.0527771.2989439.5993916.4957097.821
rank11241331072691158
C17-F26mean5757.62133,814.2121,454.7738,754.9110,644.4428,664.8829,186.4610,818.0814,996.2720,816.1329,105.021819020,097.35
best5645.90533,338.2219,072.7636,608.4910,053.3727,618.7226,275.79665.83213,418.3517,195.227,945.2616,373.8218,751.66
worst5844.64234,231.5423,904.7240,086.111,279.0129,309.0731,664.5312,812.6616,341.0825,395.2730,626.719,856.3721,014.33
std86.19253384.27252124.8911711.43626.4884750.07042731.1021414.3481266.4783492.4371155.5171506.6061001.112
median5769.96933,843.5421,420.839,162.5210,622.6828,865.8729,402.810,396.9215,112.8320,337.0228,924.0618,264.920,311.69
rank11281329113471056
C17-F27mean3309.4938327.7534022.23910,795.843497.5786058.8645560.8813572.4543954.8124160.88112,269.993948.4465126.891
best3278.017097.493875.3898220.4873469.5655810.9834968.4383536.23809.9893928.69111,978.113778.5984908.649
worst3344.59574.1684263.38413,478.563524.2756368.2276219.7593649.1694072.2254543.65912,503.974115.7565453.529
std29.133071382.852172.13942911.65622.95773248.8617690.964753.9399132.5784279.9852242.9169193.7832239.7051
median3307.7328319.6773975.09110,742.153498.2366028.1235527.6643552.2253968.5164085.58612,298.953949.7145072.694
rank11161221093571348
C17-F28mean3322.24217,991.24478.1924,108.643697.24913,651.339207.3873436.498286.219873.55616,237.666929.71710,135.48
best3318.74216,786.974225.37821,649.573592.71310,824.527941.2933366.7157097.4877824.72114,079.564870.1279275.217
worst3327.81620,221.494664.68427,186.663771.7215,794.6110,035.953504.9029983.36611,672.8617,865.4610,422.9511,089.27
std4.5007141604.85191.07082384.98777.381392446.604916.024958.388791250.0861842.2491626.4372598.878997.1342
median3321.20517,478.164511.34923,799.163712.28113,993.19426.1533437.1728031.9949998.3216,502.816212.89410,088.71
rank11241331072681159
C17-F29mean4450.696153,525.48751.92291,582.66470.8516,101.6414,518.187969.0697654.42211,086.2121,508.367938.94910,592.56
best4169.15187,746.737664.862156,769.35742.44912,568.3312,184.877242.0337468.22810,329.3417,877.277368.96410,404.47
worst4829.521209,282.39350.469404,565.47122.63220,193.816,519.688491.2587895.49411,599.6527,959.258649.22210,989.46
std289.991453,145.28764.3004108,453.6584.57613272.8762201.057551.5885183.939554.77874827.237610.5231282.6706
median4402.056158,536.38996.175302,497.86509.15915,822.2114,684.088071.4937626.98311,207.9220,098.457868.80610,488.15
rank11261321095381147
C17-F30mean5407.1661.93 × 101023,035,4073.13 × 10103,901,4721.11 × 10101.25 × 10985,519,4191.53 × 1093.14 × 1096.1 × 1095.03 × 1085.53 × 108
best5337.481.69 × 101013,126,9452.93 × 10101,739,0306.77 × 1091.02 × 10952,622,0406.27 × 1081.18 × 1094.36 × 1091.22 × 1084.61 × 108
worst5557.1552.09 × 101040,507,4933.39 × 10106,370,1421.38 × 10101.69 × 1091.05 × 1082 × 1095.83 × 1097.39 × 1091.56 × 1095.93 × 108
std103.89761.74 × 10912,590,6482.04 × 1092,198,2363.15 × 1093.09 × 10824,056,2106.32 × 1082.4 × 1091.32 × 1097.23 × 10863,276,132
median5367.0141.96 × 101019,253,5943.11 × 10103,748,3581.2 × 10101.14 × 10992,179,1831.74 × 1092.78 × 1096.34 × 1091.65 × 1085.79 × 108
rank11231321174891056
Sum rank2933614035565293265114156249272162203
Mean rank111.5862074.827586212.2413792.241379310.1034489.1379313.93103455.37931038.58620699.37931035.58620697
Total rank11241321193581067
Table 6. Wilcoxon rank sum test results.
Table 6. Wilcoxon rank sum test results.
Compared AlgorithmObjective Function Type
CEC 2017
D = 10D = 30D = 50D = 100
POA vs. WSO1.28 × 10−211.28 × 10−211.28 × 10−211.28 × 10−21
POA vs. AVOA2.46 × 10−191.98 × 10−211.28 × 10−211.28 × 10−21
POA vs. RSA1.28 × 10−211.28 × 10−211.28 × 10−211.28 × 10−21
POA vs. MPA1.31 × 10−181.02 × 10−164.33 × 10−181.28 × 10−21
POA vs. TSA6.20 × 10−211.28 × 10−211.28 × 10−211.28 × 10−21
POA vs. WOA6.20 × 10−211.28 × 10−211.28 × 10−211.28 × 10−21
POA vs. MVO5.89 × 10−191.39 × 10−211.28 × 10−211.28 × 10−21
POA vs. GWO3.41 × 10−211.28 × 10−211.28 × 10−211.28 × 10−21
POA vs. TLBO2.41 × 10−211.28 × 10−211.28 × 10−211.28 × 10−21
POA vs. GSA1.05 × 10−181.32 × 10−211.28 × 10−211.28 × 10−21
POA vs. PSO1.01 × 10−191.54 × 10−211.28 × 10−211.28 × 10−21
POA vs. GA1.76 × 10−191.28 × 10−211.28 × 10−211.28 × 10−21
Table 7. Optimization results of the CEC 2011 test suite; background color has been used in order to make the table more reader-friendly and to separate the results of benchmark functions from each other; The best results are specified using bold.
Table 7. Optimization results of the CEC 2011 test suite; background color has been used in order to make the table more reader-friendly and to separate the results of benchmark functions from each other; The best results are specified using bold.
POAWSOAVOARSAMPATSAWOAMVOGWOTLBOGSAPSOGA
C11-F1mean5.92010316.2961712.1271520.068057.37287216.9409412.3843413.0484310.2784116.9691119.822116.5342921.31513
best2 × 10−1013.501117.79170317.721430.32689315.419177.23537411.081970.98067916.2631417.259989.202119.60384
worst12.3060619.4483916.2484122.9365412.6401118.8690716.6432815.3654715.3015917.5583521.8656422.867724.01321
std7.0320063.1484194.8803882.7387365.8991331.5180944.620612.0842396.5607850.7056192.0417646.10972.014154
median5.68717616.1175812.2342419.807128.26224416.7377712.8293612.8731312.4156817.0274820.0813917.0336820.82173
rank17412295631011813
C11-F2mean−26.3179−15.9138−21.7194−13.4565−25.2481−13.2117−19.6074−11.0437−23.1085−12.8688−16.9203−23.1512−14.6421
best−27.0676−16.9621−22.2939−13.8985−25.85−16.3476−22.4632−12.8537−24.8167−14.0126−21.4324−24.3687−16.5512
worst−25.4328−14.9089−21.1364−13.0127−24.0741−11.3447−16.2291−9.68473−19.9571−11.8322−13.3466−21.1826−13.2755
std0.7220571.0729360.5011190.4758010.8577812.4134173.3288621.4409922.2373830.9305033.7450061.4083541.621478
median−26.3856−15.8921−21.7236−13.4575−25.5342−12.5772−19.8687−10.8182−23.8302−12.8153−16.4511−23.5268−14.3708
rank18510211613412739
C11-F4mean1.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−5
best1.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−5
worst1.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−5
std1.95 × 10−191.87 × 10−112.14 × 10−94.2 × 10−111.05 × 10−152.01 × 10−144.9 × 10−198.38 × 10−133.14 × 10−156.6 × 10−141.69 × 10−196.42 × 10−202.31 × 10−18
median1.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−51.15 × 10−5
rank11113126841079325
C11-F4mean0000000000000
best0000000000000
worst0000000000000
std0000000000000
median0000000000000
rank1111111111111
C11-F5mean−34.1274−26.0703−28.9288−21.8701−33.3926−28.0835−28.5154−27.9624−31.9229−13.9037−28.2712−12.0273−12.7727
best−34.7494−27.0714−29.9445−23.7379−33.9826−31.8021−28.7−32.0647−34.0666−15.6486−31.8924−15.1159−14.023
worst−33.3862−25.2709−28.4411−19.8332−32.2519−23.5537−28.0652−25.7367−28.4426−12.5761−25.4354−10.552−11.4111
std0.5765130.7848390.7126232.173010.7971353.4929120.309493.0120292.4906821.3480162.8978752.1963241.205573
median−34.1871−25.9695−28.6647−21.9546−33.668−28.489−28.6481−27.0241−32.5912−13.6952−27.8785−11.2207−12.8284
rank19410275831161312
C11-F6mean−24.1119−15.3943−19.7225−14.5328−22.8219−9.77998−20.5213−11.488−20.2419−5.23929−22.1938−5.98984−6.77572
best−27.4298−15.7454−21.3912−14.9609−25.9832−17.4134−22.9922−18.1843−23.0902−5.96024−26.1223−8.96244−11.1447
worst−23.0059−15.0486−18.0255−13.5029−21.5594−6.79967−14.3118−4.99898−18.6664−4.99898−19.1024−4.99898−4.99898
std2.2718470.3777131.5211890.7081412.1857925.2650134.2856447.1604962.1518910.4936513.1584332.0354213.027548
median−23.0059−15.3917−19.7367−14.8337−21.8724−7.45343−22.3905−11.3843−19.6054−4.99898−21.7752−4.99898−5.47961
rank17682104951331211
C11-F7mean0.8606991.5023511.2251461.7725040.9200451.2405061.6207680.8782341.0387371.5993031.0491111.0869231.618042
best0.5822661.4110091.0798511.5822050.7329371.0527041.5184440.8415910.8438751.4525570.8423450.8541431.242676
worst1.0250271.6201611.3650361.9552831.0085141.5723751.7930330.94011.2311931.7447151.2197621.2932771.812241
std0.2066720.0921720.1600990.1565950.1295730.2350550.1231280.0445110.1624820.1333540.1728520.2211480.266994
median0.917751.4891161.2278481.7762640.9693651.1684721.5857960.8656221.0399411.599971.0671691.1001371.708625
rank19713381224105611
C11-F8mean220276.1359237.6892311.0486222.1133252.2281259.8008223.5222226.3399223.5222242.7658435.5821222.1525
best220253.2495223.1308275.6506220220241.8376220220220220244.264220
worst220306.1606252.2476349.6166224.2266336.2323299.6015234.0888232.6799234.0888283.3994522.4314228.6098
std023.7935812.8693331.161222.50635757.8467827.46537.2352297.5190717.23522930.87915135.22124.421529
median220272.5668237.6892309.4637222.1133226.3399248.882220226.3399220233.8319487.8164220
rank1106112894547123
C11-F9mean8789.286483,074.6328,388.4919,557.318,656.8158,460.01325,218116,528.738,391.85354,583.9713,172.7937,253.51,681,148
best5457.674324,045.2290,082.5601,645.310,517.1141,850.42180,313.966,460.7716,926.42293,497.2611,204752,356.91,611,892
worst14,042.29554,409.1353,198.31,078,15625,556.0973,839.47550,072.5176,575.165,752.91455,337767,456.31,148,4591,779,466
std3800.348111,65528,458.98221,9497021.66714,112.97172,929.746,690.1921,194.2373,247.7471,385.83217,154.484,994.93
median7828.591526,922335,136.4999,213.819,277.0259,075.07285,242.7111,539.535,444.03334,750.6737,015.2924,0991,666,617
rank19711246538101213
C11-F10mean−21.4889−14.9961−17.5447−13.5346−19.3631−15.3584−14.0482−15.6278−15.1114−12.678−14.2904−12.7642−12.5089
best−21.8299−16.0597−17.7395−13.9161−19.746−19.2378−14.5308−21.2538−15.5783−12.7902−14.7804−12.8378−12.5968
worst−20.7878−14.5−17.1211−13.3132−18.9255−13.3665−13.6616−12.8466−14.1286−12.4989−13.6383−12.6297−12.346
std0.4872270.7367520.2990690.2892390.4079042.726050.3690573.9093650.6951090.1326310.5904860.0948070.114197
median−21.669−14.7122−17.659−13.4545−19.3905−14.4147−14.0001−14.2053−15.3695−12.7115−14.3714−12.7947−12.5465
rank17310259461281113
C11-F11mean571,712.35,089,428933,728.27,729,8391,510,6435,212,4071,127,5031,207,7273,388,5034,577,6121,296,5734,587,1805,366,107
best260,837.94,846,157702,522.47,431,6001,392,2824,341,7281,021,968624,656.83,211,6264,510,0621,160,0114,529,1975,286,309
worst828,560.95,424,8301,124,7007,928,8571,662,1786,302,8431,302,3982,427,7513,655,1714,633,4231,466,4714,633,4235,417,883
std254,962.4288,930.1189,236.6216,947.1138,529.7833,226.9130,660.1845,509.3193,819.755,400.98134,407.851,634.4159,799.43
median598,725.25,043,362953,845.37,779,4491,494,0555,102,5281,092,822889,249.93,343,6084,583,4821,279,9054,593,0505,380,117
rank11021361134785912
C11-F12mean1,199,8057,409,8043,078,63811,593,8201,264,3534,507,0235,185,1861,310,0251,393,45112,537,6985,163,4542,161,83712,676,663
best1,155,9377,106,0822,984,01210,776,1401,194,6784,281,0464,827,3961,182,7191,247,42711,817,7344,917,2292,021,67912,560,401
worst1,249,3537,682,4923,144,05112,315,9171,339,5164,626,7215,361,0891,428,4301,519,84313,096,8805,338,6272,335,96212,793,601
std46,080.46244,867.271,787.57648,639.666,020.2164,278.3252,560.4103,468116,316.4550,537.4185,730.7133,330.198,177.52
median1,196,9657,425,3223,093,24511,641,6121,261,6104,560,1635,276,1301,314,4751,403,26712,618,0905,198,9802,144,85412,676,324
rank11061127934128513
C11-F13mean15,444.215,801.4615,447.4816,192.6415,460.5915,483.9415,523.0715,499.2415,493.3715,866.74112,999.315,484.4928,024.66
best15,444.1915,641.1715,446.6215,833.0315,458.615,475.3715,485.3115,481.7615,487.3915,602.682,270.8615,469.6115,458.24
worst15,444.2116,189.7915,448.4317,086.0615,464.0415,494.8415,573.9615,532.5115,503.7316,353.34154,677.915,516.0565,420.01
std0.008884268.48690.785818616.78492.4780249.88636842.3628324.16687.436411349.000833,482.4321.8416525,605.76
median15,444.215,687.4415,447.4315,925.7315,459.8615,482.7815,516.515,491.3515,491.1915,755.51107,524.315,476.1515,610.2
rank19211348761013512
C11-F14mean18,295.3599,701.1618,488.97200,495.818,565.3919,363.5919,099.4719,266.8419,105.47271,120.518,984.519,012.6519,001.62
best18,241.5876,442.5718,382.24148,310.818,484.8419,143.0718,958.9419,171.8618,971.3528,642.218,736.0618,872.4418,757.13
worst18,388.08138,457.218,586.71287,843.818,643.9219,830.8619,196.3319,330.1819,258.69520,996.619,158.5419,151.9219,253.43
std69.9639828,491.5797.9900864,196.3168.36705323.4255115.959471.45986130.9626242,775.2191.4042117.2667208.7133
median18,275.8791,952.4618,493.46182,914.418,566.419,240.2119,121.3119,282.6719,095.92267,421.619,021.7119,013.1118,997.96
rank11121231079813465
C11-F15mean32,883.58789,85497,714.071,660,56932,939.5951,625.11193,517.433,070.7533,051.6113,341,620263,714.833,233.386,868,518
best32,782.17328,154.641,791.18697,019.43285833,035.3732,978.6732,983.9433,009.672,799,046233,893.633,217.563,128,721
worst32,956.461,979,409160,296.74,327,55833,010.26107,181.4275,074.933,122.9133,117.8519,893,221284,122.733,253.2411,768,149
std75.18941817,470.165,423.851,829,00464.1774738,041.05112,257.663.2244349.314137,983,29724,000.8515.285134,068,609
median32,897.86425,926.194,384.21808,848.432,945.0633,141.84233,00833,088.0833,039.4515,337,106268,421.433,231.356,288,601
rank11071126843139512
C11-F16mean133,550835,504.6134,9571,703,962137,102.1143,561.1140,998.8140,691.3144,206.276,907,41016,210,89468,837,66166,096,332
best131,374.2268,051.3133,344.2427,899.5135,005.9140,925.2136,081.1133,384.9142,154.274,944,4798,242,31856,944,84953,423,145
worst136,310.81,949,599135,6334,208,326140,662.2145,270.7145,978.3148,000149,364.979,121,32129,314,31782,255,88984,537,318
std2337.559776,901.41116.9131,746,3922587.542086.6634238.5766256.8993555.1121,797,8759,358,32511,205,35413,574,898
median133,257.5562,184135,425.51,089,810136,370.1144,024.3140,967.9140,690.3142,65376,781,92113,643,47068,074,95363,212,432
rank18293654713101211
C11-F17mean1,926,6157.75 × 1092 × 1091.34 × 10102,241,7191.11 × 1098.39 × 1092,951,9222,871,9261.93 × 10109.7 × 1091.8 × 10101.89 × 1010
best1,916,9536.6 × 1091.82 × 1099.64 × 1091,951,8939.14 × 1085.98 × 1092,248,9402,021,7751.86 × 10108.53 × 1091.59 × 10101.77 × 1010
worst1,942,6858.59 × 1092.19 × 1091.64 × 10102,773,8231.27 × 1091.11 × 10103,497,3744,480,8302.01 × 10101.03 × 10102.08 × 10102.14 × 1010
std11,729.359.04 × 1081.68 × 1082.98 × 109378,232.31.87 × 1082.23 × 109591,769.51,137,3876.69 × 1088.12 × 1082.28 × 1091.72 × 109
median1,923,4127.9 × 1092 × 1091.38 × 10102,120,5791.13 × 1098.2 × 1093,030,6862,492,5491.92 × 10109.99 × 1091.77 × 10101.83 × 1010
rank17610258431391112
C11-F18mean942,057.547,685,7365,797,1821.03 × 108967,735.71,900,4788,412,951981,892.11,019,09226,941,5329,752,2381.17 × 10899,204,327
best938,416.232,835,7943,536,56770,851,530948,240.51,678,1273,691,349961,316.7963,66221,379,6947,310,03498,075,25095,567,953
worst944,706.954,224,6439,852,3951.17 × 1081,018,4682,196,43914,673,571991,091.11,165,99129,133,51512,269,4561.3 × 1081.03 × 108
std2710.77510,287,7383,021,01422,213,83834,862.01256,626.54,762,93714,247.92100,799.73,824,0412,275,87514,522,9173,058,517
median942,553.551,841,2544,899,8841.11 × 108952,1171,863,6727,643,442987,580.2973,357.628,626,4599,714,7311.2 × 10899,195,338
rank11061225734981311
C11-F19mean1,025,34146,951,6265,895,9821 × 1081,122,6312,269,1778,976,7031,415,7051,317,21330,923,2825,559,3561.49 × 10899,546,536
best967,927.740,077,6915,413,73386,762,3541,056,7802,056,5601,912,2001,106,5301,198,91221,691,4802,222,3601.36 × 10897,066,099
worst1,167,14259,652,1017,107,0911.26 × 1081,275,9102,645,96516,142,7941,827,3411,493,44538,532,5717,250,9021.73 × 1081.02 × 108
std97,398.369,066,953834,136.718,873,011105,641.6265,805.26,885,212308,560.8128,320.47,489,9182,343,34316,563,5402,301,701
median983,146.644,038,3565,531,55194,386,2411,078,9182,187,0928,925,9101,364,4741,288,24731,734,5386,382,0801.45 × 10899,313,659
rank11071225843961311
C11-F20mean941,250.449,902,6555,223,8091.08 × 108957,767.41,706,9796,424,884968,550.5990,801.430,030,02912,470,7471.38 × 10899,812,450
best936,143.243,921,3484,620,09594,897,156955,705.61,548,2056,060,356960,209973,383.729,375,0318,325,4551.26 × 10895,046,637
worst946,866.659,071,4005,868,1971.29 × 108958,850.41,972,2406,911,234977,985.81,004,26530,738,86419,234,9591.5 × 1081.04 × 108
std4899.0386,630,787532,074.114,882,0691441.981206,856.4373,449.17851.20913,658.84582,763.34,896,55613,558,2713,674,975
median940,995.948,308,9365,203,4731.05 × 108958,256.71,653,7356,363,973968,003.6992,778.430,003,11011,161,2871.38 × 1081 × 108
rank11061225734981311
C11-F21mean12.7144345.187620.4399367.8713215.5013227.5189735.2769525.5400621.0751188.8335536.9305993.1898790.48226
best9.97420637.7955918.903551.2422813.2480924.473632.726122.675619.3856843.7373933.0134380.9760752.76258
worst14.9749953.0631822.3266684.4169817.7870128.8314638.4568428.4706623.41105129.907739.66032103.1089109.7311
std2.3575596.7419941.50262215.037982.1582062.0985382.5902243.1748981.90751936.269773.00103911.3952127.27537
median12.9542544.9458120.2647867.9130215.4850928.3854234.9624425.50720.7518590.8445537.524394.3372599.71769
rank19310267541181312
C11-F22mean16.1251342.6827625.921557.1088718.6832429.9820542.2670530.1171523.7994790.9665642.5761794.4566982.28708
best11.5013337.8192920.7371942.4342215.5565925.8518936.181323.3279423.3115759.3497936.3553478.9130480.82874
worst19.5528647.938430.9382365.8753721.0308632.6502346.8295334.9709224.23236107.816950.02428104.554484.13235
std4.1019154.495984.97718910.488752.7031192.9796014.9881235.1357030.4100122.326215.8478411.7141.411088
median16.7231742.4866726.0052960.0629519.0727730.7130443.0286931.0848723.8269898.3497841.9625397.1796682.09361
rank19410257631281311
Sum rank221911092315514614511897222157198224
Mean rank18.6818184.95454510.52.56.6363646.5909095.3636364.40909110.090917.136364910.18182
Total rank12124133119671058
Wilcoxon: p-value1.28 × 10−157.32 × 10−151.28 × 10−155.32 × 10−152.74 × 10−151.28 × 10−152.99 × 10−125.32 × 10−154.02 × 10−156.38 × 10−151.90 × 10−154.02 × 10−15
Table 8. Performance of optimization algorithms on pressure vessel design problem.
Table 8. Performance of optimization algorithms on pressure vessel design problem.
AlgorithmOptimum VariablesOptimum Cost
TsThRL
POA0.77802710.384579240.3122842005882.8955
WSO0.77802720.384578840.3122832005882.9013
AVOA0.77803070.38458140.312469199.997415882.9075
RSA1.17996940.631149859.81910153.5154977692.0978
MPA0.77802710.384579240.3122842005882.9013
TSA0.77944630.385774340.3838392005908.4196
WOA0.90670020.44867346.017223136.22676256.8632
MVO0.83239160.415256843.112935165.209165999.4855
GWO0.77844430.385768240.320326199.965715889.9468
TLBO1.53396160.477812347.429558127.3671710,629.675
GSA1.11731191.129740543.973024191.1200111,764.254
PSO1.52220250.614517462.31580155.205219850.1299
GA1.38374260.768889957.60599478.5122610,738.52
Table 9. Statistical results of optimization algorithms on pressure vessel design problem.
Table 9. Statistical results of optimization algorithms on pressure vessel design problem.
AlgorithmMeanBestWorstStdMedianRank
POA5882.89555882.89555882.89551.92 × 10−125882.89551
WSO5890.92575882.90135962.072821.9974345882.90173
AVOA6207.39165882.90757004.3405348.845866041.74925
RSA12,174.0817692.097819,482.6743095.891711,204.1429
MPA5882.90135882.90135882.90133.65 × 10−65882.90132
TSA6257.12335908.41966909.9332329.837186134.20786
WOA7922.29436256.863212,555.6021665.13087518.40958
MVO6495.18185999.48557008.2785317.125756547.31827
GWO6007.69595889.94686642.5575236.999085897.98474
TLBO27,465.41310,629.67558,347.6713,658.12324,286.56712
GSA20,110.97511,764.25431,159.2486644.759719,327.12210
PSO28,828.6239850.129949,094.71312,786.56731,741.35213
GA24,722.52310,738.5244,100.2910,720.86421,949.80611
Table 10. Performance of optimization algorithms on speed reducer design problem.
Table 10. Performance of optimization algorithms on speed reducer design problem.
AlgorithmOptimum VariablesOptimum Cost
bMpl1l2d1d2
POA3.50.7177.37.83.35021475.28668322996.3482
WSO3.50000040.7177.30000847.80000043.35021485.28668332996.3483
AVOA3.50.7177.30000067.83.35021475.28668322996.3482
RSA3.57827090.7178.08270928.19135463.35484185.45364823154.7106
MPA3.50.7177.37.83.35021475.28668322996.3482
TSA3.51095330.7177.38.19135463.35049145.28968343011.2327
WOA3.57428120.7177.37.97776363.35989295.28674483031.9314
MVO3.50191220.7177.38.02847143.3666725.28685193006.4419
GWO3.50054450.7177.30436767.83.36187655.28848933000.7349
TLBO3.54763780.703394524.9176937.98052938.09314643.61620065.33141464927.3723
GSA3.51945520.702338117.3134787.74203747.87609753.39994475.37096893143.5799
PSO3.50694970.700061117.9304397.38410397.85777183.55847115.33537723256.3667
GA3.56625010.704726117.6911047.67584377.84742333.64858095.33733893294.0025
Table 11. Statistical results of optimization algorithms on speed reducer design problem.
Table 11. Statistical results of optimization algorithms on speed reducer design problem.
AlgorithmMeanBestWorstStdMedianRank
POA2996.34822996.34822996.34829.58 × 10−132996.34821
WSO2996.58892996.34832998.42970.51011652996.36193
AVOA3000.17622996.34823008.85453.46096373000.09174
RSA3234.49693154.71063284.013550.1663143247.13149
MPA2996.34822996.34822996.34822.78 × 10−62996.34822
TSA3026.73673011.23273038.39728.84405773028.25517
WOA3126.87663031.93143377.44592.7152363098.56548
MVO3024.77533006.44193059.045511.5633883025.14886
GWO3003.3743000.73493008.43942.18690033002.93425
TLBO5.907 × 10134927.37234.275 × 10141.01 × 10142.313 × 101312
GSA3385.54223143.57993912.9273228.700173275.442710
PSO8.717 × 10133256.36674.416 × 10141.081 × 10146.235 × 101313
GA4.197 × 10133294.00252.709 × 10146.79 × 10131.682 × 101311
Table 12. Performance of optimization algorithms on welded beam design problem.
Table 12. Performance of optimization algorithms on welded beam design problem.
AlgorithmOptimum VariablesOptimum Cost
hltb
POA0.20572963.47048879.03662390.20572961.7246798
WSO0.20572923.47048859.03662370.20572911.7248523
AVOA0.20508033.48457049.03653330.20573381.7257584
RSA0.19805963.52497949.79066720.21597441.9375828
MPA0.20572963.47048879.03662390.20572961.7248523
TSA0.20442753.49161729.06002410.20609191.7324856
WOA0.21251963.35100588.98330940.21869021.8067407
MVO0.20595333.46566849.04346740.20600631.7278338
GWO0.20561283.47316829.03629810.20578831.7254222
TLBO0.29869764.27780237.13613430.39193052.8272527
GSA0.28051722.83491247.66542320.29249062.0300996
PSO0.34731693.43160637.60043770.51827343.675343
GA0.22149976.39377857.95593150.28945282.6042749
Table 13. Statistical results of optimization algorithms on welded beam design problem.
Table 13. Statistical results of optimization algorithms on welded beam design problem.
AlgorithmMeanBestWorstStdMedianRank
POA1.72467981.72467981.72467982.34 × 10−161.72467981
WSO1.72485261.72485231.7248571.09 × 10−61.72485233
AVOA1.75571381.72575841.82485810.03179061.74392347
RSA2.11252671.93758282.40757170.12565232.09127668
MPA1.72485231.72485231.72485232.92 × 10−91.72485232
TSA1.74038141.73248561.74818340.00488671.74046316
WOA2.22209181.80674073.69500080.55939852.0311769
MVO1.73874631.72783381.76745530.01199231.73529185
GWO1.72688951.72542221.73032170.0011881.72668134
TLBO2.823 × 10132.82725272.724 × 10147.072 × 10135.091435912
GSA2.33496082.03009962.59685730.16694872.360035110
PSO3.893 × 10133.6753432.357 × 10147.636 × 10135.972837913
GA9.556 × 10122.60427491.034 × 10143.013 × 10135.063085711
Table 14. Performance of optimization algorithms on tension/compression spring design problem.
Table 14. Performance of optimization algorithms on tension/compression spring design problem.
AlgorithmOptimum VariablesOptimum Cost
dDP
POA0.05168910.356717711.2889660.0126019
WSO0.05168740.356677311.2913370.0126652
AVOA0.05126690.346670811.9106020.0126694
RSA0.0503670.320603214.1936270.0130834
MPA0.05169050.356752211.2869490.0126652
TSA0.05109470.342613212.1876130.0126794
WOA0.05124530.346162111.943910.0126699
MVO0.0503670.32552213.4923240.0127369
GWO0.05191580.362185910.9804980.0126699
TLBO0.06530370.81075834.01840690.0167497
GSA0.05459280.42834848.34564830.0130117
PSO0.06523380.80811714.01840690.0166633
GA0.06570020.81737574.01840690.0170839
Table 15. Statistical results of optimization algorithms on tension/compression spring design problem.
Table 15. Statistical results of optimization algorithms on tension/compression spring design problem.
AlgorithmMeanBestWorstStdMedianRank
POA0.01260190.01260190.01260197.07 × 10−180.01260191
WSO0.01267460.01266520.01279993.084 × 10−50.01266563
AVOA0.01323280.01266940.01391110.00047950.01317568
RSA0.01315190.01308340.01327255.968 × 10−50.01313436
MPA0.01266520.01266520.01266522.45 × 10−90.01266522
TSA0.01291420.01267940.01338630.00020780.01285255
WOA0.01317370.01266990.0142010.00051970.01300777
MVO0.01585550.01273690.01705940.00141690.01662259
GWO0.01271360.01266990.01290064.757 × 10−50.01271154
TLBO0.01719490.01674970.01770330.00030790.017157810
GSA0.01832550.01301170.02891350.0036640.017968611
PSO1.752 × 10130.01666333.109 × 10147.145 × 10130.016663313
GA1.369 × 10120.01708391.416 × 10134.198 × 10120.023460612
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

Al-Baik, O.; Alomari, S.; Alssayed, O.; Gochhait, S.; Leonova, I.; Dutta, U.; Malik, O.P.; Montazeri, Z.; Dehghani, M. Pufferfish Optimization Algorithm: A New Bio-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithm for Solving Optimization Problems. Biomimetics 2024, 9, 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics9020065

AMA Style

Al-Baik O, Alomari S, Alssayed O, Gochhait S, Leonova I, Dutta U, Malik OP, Montazeri Z, Dehghani M. Pufferfish Optimization Algorithm: A New Bio-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithm for Solving Optimization Problems. Biomimetics. 2024; 9(2):65. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics9020065

Chicago/Turabian Style

Al-Baik, Osama, Saleh Alomari, Omar Alssayed, Saikat Gochhait, Irina Leonova, Uma Dutta, Om Parkash Malik, Zeinab Montazeri, and Mohammad Dehghani. 2024. "Pufferfish Optimization Algorithm: A New Bio-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithm for Solving Optimization Problems" Biomimetics 9, no. 2: 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics9020065

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop