Appendix A
In order to evaluate the performance of the proposed NAIWO algorithm, two simulation experiments were designed and the details of which are provided in this section. In the first part, nine well-known test functions were selected to verify the searching ability of the proposed NAIWO.
Table A1 shows the basic information of the nine benchmark functions and the corresponding 2D perspectives are shown in
Figure A1.
Table A1.
Two-dimensional benchmark test functions considered in the simulations.
Table A1.
Two-dimensional benchmark test functions considered in the simulations.
Functions | Names | Dimension | Solution Range | Global Minimum |
---|
F1 | Ackley | 2 | | fmin = 0 at (0, 0) |
F2 | Cross-in-Tray | 2 | | fmin = −2.06261 at (±1.3491, ±1.3491) |
F3 | Drop-wave | 2 | | fmin = −1 at (0, 0) |
F4 | Griewank | 2 | | fmin = 0 at (0, 0) |
F5 | Levy | 2 | | fmin = 0 at (1, 1) |
F6 | Rosenbrock | 2 | | fmin = 0 at (1, 1) |
F7 | Schaffer | 2 | | fmin = 0 at (0, 0) |
F8 | Schwefel | 2 | | fmin = 0 at (420.9687, 420.9687) |
F9 | Three-hump camel | 2 | | fmin = 0 at (0, 0) |
Figure A1.
A two-dimensional perspective with contours of the benchmark test functions, including (a) Ackley function (F1), (b) Cross-in-Tray function (F2), (c) Drop-wave function (F3), (d) Griewank function (F4), (e) Levy function (F5), (f) Rosenbrock function (F6), (g) Schaffer function (F7), (h) Schwefel function (F8), and (i) Three-hump camel function (F9).
Figure A1.
A two-dimensional perspective with contours of the benchmark test functions, including (a) Ackley function (F1), (b) Cross-in-Tray function (F2), (c) Drop-wave function (F3), (d) Griewank function (F4), (e) Levy function (F5), (f) Rosenbrock function (F6), (g) Schaffer function (F7), (h) Schwefel function (F8), and (i) Three-hump camel function (F9).
Except for F6 and F9, all the other seven functions have a large number of local minimums. Even for F6 and F9, the global minimum of the function cannot be easily found when reaching the convergence point. These functions are widely used in the performance test of any newly proposed intelligent algorithm [
25,
26].
During the test, the initial search range () of the IWO algorithm and the NAIWO algorithm is generally 1% of the definition domain and the final search range is . The initial population P0 = 25 and the maximum population ; Maximum number of iterations . Where in the NAIWO algorithm, the determination parameters of the niche radius are a = 3, b = 1.05, and k = 0.6, Adaptive spatial diffusion parameter K = 5 and T = 10.
Figure A2 shows the fitness curves of the two algorithms. The maximum number of iterations selected in the test is 300, while the global search of the two algorithms is mainly reflected in the first 100 generations and the iterative process of the latter is mainly local search in order to obtain better convergence accuracy. Therefore, when generating the fitness curve, in order to better display the contrast, the first 100 generations of data were selected. The nine images in
Figure A2 illustrate that the NAIWO algorithm proposed in this study has obvious advantages in both global convergence ability and convergence speed than the IWO.
In order to obtain more reliable results, each function was tested 30 times and the average value, minimum value, and variance are shown in
Table A2. By comparing the minimum convergence values of the two algorithms in
Table A2, it can be seen that in most cases, the NAIWO algorithm has comparable or higher convergence accuracy than the IWO algorithm. Meanwhile, the mean of convergence can better reflect the overall convergence of the algorithm. The analysis reflects that NAIWO has a higher probability of converging to the global minimum than IWO. The variance data shows that the stability of the NAIWO algorithm converging to the global optimal solution is much higher than IWO.
Figure A2.
Comparison of the fitness curves between NAIWO and IWO. The maximum number of iterations selected in the test is 300. In order to better display the contrast, the first 100 generations are selected when generating the image. (a) Ackley function (F1), (b) Cross-in-Tray function (F2), (c) Drop-wave function (F3), (d) Griewank function (F4), (e) Levy function (F5), (f) Rosenbrock function (F6), (g) Schaffer function (F7), (h) Schwefel function (F8), and (i) Three-hump camel function (F9).
Figure A2.
Comparison of the fitness curves between NAIWO and IWO. The maximum number of iterations selected in the test is 300. In order to better display the contrast, the first 100 generations are selected when generating the image. (a) Ackley function (F1), (b) Cross-in-Tray function (F2), (c) Drop-wave function (F3), (d) Griewank function (F4), (e) Levy function (F5), (f) Rosenbrock function (F6), (g) Schaffer function (F7), (h) Schwefel function (F8), and (i) Three-hump camel function (F9).
Table A2.
Comparison data of IWO and NAIWO algorithms.
Table A2.
Comparison data of IWO and NAIWO algorithms.
Functions | Algorithms | Mean | Minimum | Variance |
---|
F1 | IWO | 0.96031 | 1.329 × 10−7 | 11.153 |
NAIWO | 1.702 × 10−6 | 1.4251× 10−7 | 5.9939 × 10−13 |
F2 | IWO | −2.0511 | −2.0626 | 1.919× 10−3 |
NAIWO | −2.0626 | −2.0626 | 1.2302 × 10−28 |
F3 | IWO | −0.8402 | −1 | 1.983 × 10−2 |
NAIWO | −1 | −1 | 7.125 × 10−24 |
F4 | IWO | 5.5380 × 10−2 | 4.6835 × 10−2 | 2.1 × 10−4 |
NAIWO | 1.9692 × 10−14 | 1.22125 × 10−15 | 5.3704 × 10−28 |
F5 | IWO | 1.895 | 5.7394 × 10−13 | 5.95262 |
NAIWO | 2.125 × 10−12 | 1.1457 × 10−13 | 5.7893 × 10−24 |
F6 | IWO | 6.29 × 10−3 | 3.8735 × 10−14 | 4.1 × 10−4 |
NAIWO | 8.3774 × 10−13 | 7.91675 × 10−16 | 5.876 × 10−25 |
F7 | IWO | 6.474 × 10−3 | 0 | 5.0604 × 10−5 |
NAIWO | 6.6613 × 10−17 | 0 | 2.0912 × 10−32 |
F8 | IWO | 68.431 | 2.5455 × 10−5 | 7463.60 |
NAIWO | 7.8959 | 2.5455 × 10−5 | 902.928 |
F9 | IWO | 3.98 × 10−2 | 1.66 × 10−15 | 1.066 × 10−2 |
NAIWO | 1.32 × 10−13 | 7.04 × 10−16 | 1.229 × 10−26 |
To further verify the optimization ability of the proposed NAIWO algorithm, two well-known optimization algorithms, genetic algorithm (GA) and bat algorithm (BA), are compared using four higher-dimensional benchmark functions in this section.
Table A3 shows the details of the four test functions. The number of iterations is 500 and the selection methods of the value of other parameters are the same as above.
Table A3.
High dimensional benchmark test functions considered in the simulations.
Table A3.
High dimensional benchmark test functions considered in the simulations.
Functions | Names | Dimension | Equations | Global Minimum |
---|
F10 | Griewank | 3 | | fmin = 0 at (0,0,0) |
F11 | Rastirgin | 3 | | fmin = 0 at (0,0,0) |
F12 | Colville | 4 | | fmin = 0 at (1,1,1,1) |
F13 | Powell | 4 | | fmin = 0 at (0,0,0,0) |
Figure A3 shows the fitness curve of the iterative process of the four algorithms, which shows that in the process of finding the minimum value of F10 and F11 functions, the NAIWO algorithm has the most outstanding comprehensive convergence ability and fastest convergence speed. BA also has a faster convergence speed, but its poor convergence stability makes it possible to converge to a local minimum with a certain probability.
The statistical information of the 30 repeated simulations shown in
Table A4 also confirms the conclusions made above. In the 30 runs of the two functions F10 and F11, the minimum convergence accuracy of the BA algorithm is the highest of the four algorithms, but its average value and variance value are higher than that of the NAIWO algorithm by one or more orders of magnitude, indicating that its convergence probability and stability are far inferior to the NAIWO algorithm. The comparison of the statistical data of F10–F13 shows that the NAIWO algorithm has greater advantages in stability and convergence accuracies compared with the other three algorithms, which shows the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm.
Figure A3.
Comparison of the fitness curves between NAIWO, IWO, GA, and BA. The maximum number of iterations selected in the test is 500. (a) Griewank function (F10), (b) Rastirgin function (F11), (c) Colville function (F12), and (d) Powell function (F13).
Figure A3.
Comparison of the fitness curves between NAIWO, IWO, GA, and BA. The maximum number of iterations selected in the test is 500. (a) Griewank function (F10), (b) Rastirgin function (F11), (c) Colville function (F12), and (d) Powell function (F13).
Table A4.
Statistical comparison data of IWO, GA, BA, and NAIWO algorithms.
Table A4.
Statistical comparison data of IWO, GA, BA, and NAIWO algorithms.
Functions | Algorithms | Mean | Minimum | Variance |
---|
F10 | IWO | 1.45927 | 2.58225 × 10−10 | 1.27896 |
GA | 0.42361 | 0.02378 | 0.17285 |
BA | 0.43115 | 2.70894 × 10−12 | 0.25147 |
NAIWO | 2.3897 × 10−9 | 6.7921 × 10−11 | 3.5773 × 10−18 |
F11 | IWO | 0.18875 | 0.00740 | 0.01780 |
GA | 0.35222 | 0.08101 | 0.01243 |
BA | 0.01052 | 8.88178 × 10−14 | 0.00023 |
NAIWO | 0.00263 | 1.61982 × 10−13 | 1.71477 × 10−5 |
F12 | IWO | 0.25676 | 1.02182 × 10−10 | 0.39066 |
GA | 0.19600 | 0.01125 | 0.02123 |
BA | 1.77976 | 0.01474 | 3.29279 |
NAIWO | 0.00011 | 4.29174 × 10−11 | 1.66852 × 10−7 |
F13 | IWO | 1.73784 × 10−7 | 1.98073 × 10−12 | 3.33946 × 10−13 |
GA | 0.08609 | 0.00225 | 4.89659 × 10−3 |
BA | 8.79407 × 10−5 | 7.17666 × 10−6 | 5.63957 × 10−9 |
NAIWO | 1.63239 × 10−9 | 1.12409 × 10−12 | 1.03073 × 10−17 |