MULTI-OBJECTIVE FLOW DIRECTION ALGORITHM FOR OPTIMAL LOAD

GENERATION BALANCING IN A MULTI-AREA POWER GRID

Nyayieka David Omondi
Department of Electrical and Information Engineering, University of Nairobi, Kenya.
Correspondence should be addressed to Nyayieka David Omondi; lastname@institution.edu

ABSTRACT
As the demand for electrical energy continues to grow, efficient load generation balancing and resource allocation become
crucial for ensuring the reliability and stability of power systems. In this project, the load generation balancing problem is
formulated as a multi-objective optimization problem with two competing objectives i.e., minimizing the total cost of generation
and minimizing the total power loss in a multi-area power grid. To address this problem, this paper presents a novel multi-
objective flow direction algorithm. The algorithm aims to find an optimal solution by iteratively updating the candidate solutions
(flows). The algorithm explores the search space by updating the positions of the flows based on the flow direction and
neighborhood interactions. For each updated flow, the fitness values are calculated using the weighted sum method. The
algorithm continues until convergence. The performance of the proposed MOFDA is evaluated by both bi-objective and tri-
objective benchmark functions, all of which have different properties. Moreover, the MOFDA is compared to other ten multi-
objective optimization algorithms including, MOPSO, GA-MUL, MOBA, MOAHA and MOWOA. Simulation results show that
MOFDA performs better than other optimization algorithms, depicting better fitness values and better standard deviation values
for 10 algorithm runs implying that the MOFDA always achieves the global minimum as compared to other algorithms which
were sometimes being trapped at a local minimum. Simulations are also carried out on a multi-area power grid model to assess
MOFDA’s performance, considering various load demands and power limits on the generation power in each area. The results
show that the algorithm successfully achieves load generation balancing, effectively lowering both power generation cost and
losses and improving the power grid’s overall stability and efficiency.

1. INTRODUCTION Multi-objective optimization solves this issue by considering

trade-offs between the competing objectives [3]. MOO
In multi-area power grids, the management of load
techniques can be classified into pareto-based methods,
generation balancing is essential to ensure the stability and
aggregation-based methods, decomposition-based methods,
reliability of power systems [1]. Load generation balancing
hybrid and adaptive techniques. Pareto-based methods
involves distribution of power generation capacity among
compare and rank solutions by utilizing dominance
different areas to meet the load demand while minimizing
relationships such as Pareto dominance or weak dominance.
the overall generation cost, reducing load-generation
Evolutionary computation is used by algorithms such as the
imbalances, and limiting power transfer between areas.
Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA),
Traditional methods for load generation balancing often
NSGA-II, and NSGA-III to approximate the Pareto-optimal
focus on single-objective optimization, ignoring the complex
front.
trade-offs between different objectives which might be of
high significance [2]. Aggregation-based methods use weighting or scalarization
techniques to combine many objectives into a single
Multi-objective optimization (MOO) aims to simultaneously
composite objective. Common examples include the
optimize two or more competing objectives. It is a crucial
Weighted Sum method, the ε-constraint approach, and goal
area of research in many fields, including engineering,
programming. The Weighted Sum Method weights each
economics, and finance. In real-world applications,
objective, resulting in a weighted sum objective function.
objectives often conflict with one another, making it difficult
Moreover, decomposition-based methods break the multi-
to optimize a single objective without sacrificing others.
objective problem into a set of single-objective subproblems
while accounting for inter-objective interactions. These
methods optimize each subproblem separately while taking
into account the effects on other subproblems. In addition,
hybrid approaches combine different MOO methodologies
to capitalize on their unique capabilities. They frequently
combine several algorithms or approaches to improve
solution quality or computing performance. Finally,
adaptive MOO approaches use adaptive mechanisms to
modify algorithm parameters or tactics dynamically during
the optimization process. These approaches seek to increase
the convergence and diversity of the solutions obtained [4].
The selection of the most suitable MOO technique depends
on the problem’s complexity, size, and computational
resources available [3]. However, MOO techniques also face
some challenges, such as convergence, scalability, and
robustness. The convergence of MOO techniques can be
affected by the choice of algorithm parameters, the
population size, and the stopping criteria. The scalability of
MOO techniques can be a challenge when dealing with
high-dimensional problems, as the search space increases
exponentially with the number of objectives. The robustness
of MOO techniques can be affected by the problem’s
uncertainty, such as incomplete or noisy information [3].
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Power Systems Operation and Control
Power systems are networks of generators, transmission
lines, transformers, and distribution systems that work
together to provide reliable and affordable electricity to
consumers [5]. The operation and control of power systems
are critical to maintaining system stability, ensuring efficient
use of resources, and preventing blackouts [5].
Generation involves the production of electricity from
various sources such as coal, natural gas, nuclear power,
wind, and solar. The primary goal of generation is to provide
enough electricity to meet the demand of consumers while
considering the system constraints. One of the challenges of
generation is that the output of generators is not constant,
but rather varies depending on factors such as weather
conditions and fuel availability. Therefore, it is important to
ensure that there is enough generation capacity available to
meet peak demand [6].
Transmission involves transporting electricity over long
distances from generators to consumers using high-voltage
transmission lines. Transmission is critical to ensuring that
electricity is delivered reliably and efficiently. One of the
challenges of transmission is that power lines have a limited
capacity and can become overloaded during times of high
demand. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the
transmission system is designed to handle peak demand
while maintaining system stability [7].
Distribution entails delivering electricity to homes and
businesses through low-voltage distribution lines.
Distribution is critical to ensuring that electricity is delivered
safely and reliably to consumers. One of the challenges of
distribution is that it is difficult to predict the exact amount
of electricity that will be needed in a particular area at a
particular time [5]. Therefore, it is important to have a
distribution system that is flexible and can adjust to changes
in demand.
The operation and control of power systems is challenging
due to the large number of components, the variable nature
of generation, and the constantly changing demand for
electricity. In addition, power systems must also be able to
respond to unexpected events such as equipment failures
2.2 Multi-area grid and Load Generation Balancing
In a multi-area power grid, load balancing refers to the task
of distributing the power generation across different areas in
a way that ensures each area’s load demand is met while
minimizing imbalances between generation and
consumption [1]. Load balancing is crucial for the stable and
reliable operation of the power grid, as imbalances can lead
to voltage fluctuations, overloads, and potential blackouts
[8]. The problem of load balancing in multi-area power grids
arises due to several factors. Firstly, each area within the
grid may have its own specific load demand, influenced by
factors such as population density, industrial activities, and
climate conditions. These variations in load demand across
different areas result in different requirements for power
generation in each area.

Figure2.1: Representation of a multi-area power grid
Secondly, power generation is not evenly distributed across
the grid. Different areas may have different types and
capacities of generation stations, including thermal power
plants, hydroelectric plants, wind farms, and solar farms [9].
These generation stations may also have different costs
associated with their operation and maintenance. The
challenge in load balancing arises from the dynamic nature
of load demand and the limitations of power generation and
transmission infrastructure. Load demand fluctuates
throughout the day due to varying consumer behavior and
changing industrial activities.
2.3. Multi-Objective Optimization
When there is need to optimize two or more objective
functions simultaneously, the resulting optimization problem
is known as a multi-objective optimization problem [13]. In
general, these problems have opposing objectives, making it
difficult to find a single optimum solution that meets all of
the objectives. In such instances, a set of optimum solutions
exists rather than a single ideal option. The Pareto-Optimal
set is a collection of optimum solutions. In contrast to
single-objective optimization, the optimality criterion in
multi-objective optimization is rarely a single point that is
minimal (or maximum) in all objectives [14]. Instead,
Pareto-optimality is used to express optimality. If there is no
other solution S2 that dominates the solution S1, the solution
S1 is said to be Pareto-optimal. A solution A dominates a
solution B if it outperforms B in at least one objective
function and is not worse in all other objective functions.
The set of all Pareto-optimal points is known as the Pareto
set, and the front obtained from it is known as the Pareto
front [3].
Figure 2.2 depicts a Pareto front for minimizing the
objective functions f1 and f2.
Figure 2.2: Pareto front for minimizing f1 and f2
Each box represents a potentially viable solution. The chart
shows that solution A is better than B in f1 but not worse
than B in f2. As a result, solution A outperforms solution B.
Solution A outperforms S1 in f1 but falls short of S1 in f2.
Neither of them dominates the other, nor are there any other
feasible solution that dominates them. As a result, S1 and A
are both on the Pareto front.
A multi-objective optimization algorithm’s main goal is to
find the Pareto-optimal set. Converting the multi-objective
problem to a single objective optimization problem is one of
the simplest solutions. One approach is to make the single
objective function the weighted sum of all the objectives as
shown by equation (1).
f =w1 f 1 +w2 f 2+ …+w n f n (1)
where, f – resultant single objective function; w1, w2, wn
represent the weights assigned to the objectives; n represents
number of objectives.
Through assigning of different weights and conducting
several single objective optimizations, different locations on
the Pareto-front can be obtained. However, a good
distribution of points along the front is not guaranteed [15]. 
2.4. Flow Direction Algorithm
Proposed by Mirjalili et al, The D8 method, which
determines the direction of flow in a drainage basin after
converting rainfall to runoff, served as the inspiration for the
FDA algorithm. This algorithm starts out by populating the
problem search space or drainage basin with an initial
population. The flows then move to a lower altitude in an
effort to get the outflow point with the lowest altitude
(optimum solution) [19]. The following presumptions
underlie how the algorithm functions:
 Each flows have a height and a position
 There are β positions(neighbors) around each flow
 They all have an objective function.
 The slope has a direct impact on the flow movement
velocity.
 The flow is moving in the direction with the lowest
height at a speed of V.
 The flow position with the best objective function is
at the basin outlet point.
The algorithm’s initial parameters are the population size α ,
the number of neighbors β , and the radius of the
neighbourhood ∆ .
2.4.1 Mathematical modelling of FDA
According to the FDA, relation (2) is used to identify where
the initial flow will be located.
Flo w X (i )=lb +rand∗( ub−lb ) (2)
where, Flo w X (i ) is the position of the ith flow,
lb and ub represent the lower and upper limits of the
decision variables,
rand is uniformly distributed in the range of [0, 1].
Each flow is surrounded by neighborhoods, with the
neighbor flow position determined through the following
relationship:
Neighbo r X ( j )=Flo w X (i )+ randn∗∆
(3)
Where, Neighbo r X ( j )denotes the position of the j-th
neighbor,
randn is normally distributed with values in the range of [0,
1].
∆=( rand∗Xrand−rand∗Flo w X (i ) )∗(‖Bes t X −Flo w X (i)‖)∗W ¿
(4)
Where, rand is random number with uniform distribution,
Xrand is a random position bounded by upper and
lower limits
Bes t X represent the global optimal solution,
W is a nonlinear weight with random number
between 0 and infinity
Large values of delta allow searching in a wide range, while
small values limit searching to a small range. In actuality,
searching over a wide area yields a wider variety of options
and raises the likelihood of discovering close to
optimal solutions (global search). The achievement of a
balance between both of these capabilities results in a highly
precise global optimal solution.
{( ) ( ) }
2∗randn
iter rand∗iter
W = 1− ∗ ∗rand (5)
Max iter Ma x iter
Where iter is the current iteration, Max_iter denotes the total
number of iterations, and (rand) denotes a random vector
with uniform distribution.
The flow travels to the neighbor with the least objective
function at a speed of V, as was previously mentioned. On
the other hand, the slope has a direct correlation with the
flow velocity to the neighbors. Therefore, the relation (6) is
employed to determine the flow velocity vector:
V =randn∗S o (6)
where So denotes the slope vector between the current flow’s
location and its neighbor. Global search is enabled by the
random number randn, which generates a variety of
solutions. The following relation also determines the vector
of the slope of ith flow in reference to its jth neighbor:
( )
Flo w fitness ( i)−Neighbo r fitness ( j )
So ( i , j, d )= (7)
‖Flo w x ( i ,d )−Neighbo r x ( j , d )‖
where the objective values for the flows I and neighbor j are
represented by Flo w fitness (i) and Neighbo r fitness ( j) respectively
with the d parameter depicting the dimensions of problem.
The following relationship is applied to complete the new
position of the flow
(‖
Flo w X (i) −Neighbo r X ( j)
Flo w newX (i )=Flo w X (i )+V ∗
Flo w X (i) −Neighbo r X ( j)‖
At this point it is important to note that no neighbor’s fitness
value may be lower than a flow. The FDA algorithm chooses
another flow at random to simulate this state; if its objective
function is lower than the present flow’s, it will travel in the
same direction; otherwise, it will move in the direction of
the dominating slope. Relation (9) demonstrates how to
simulate the flow direction.
if flo w fitness ( r) < flo w fitness (i )
Flo w newX (i )=Flo w X (i )+randn∗( Flo w X (r )−Flow X (i) )
else
Flo w newX (i )=Flo w X (i )+2 randn∗Bes t X −Flo w X (i ) ¿ ¿
end
where r is a random integer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Multi-objective FDA implementation
3.1.1 Algorithm Modification
The below steps are taken to make the FDA multi-objective.
 The Multi-objective function to be optimized
(MultiObjfun), number of objectives
(num_objectives) and weights to be assigned to the
objectives were added as input parameters to the
MOFDA function.
 The fitness_flow and fitness_neighbor matrices were
modified to accommodate multiple objectives. Their
sizes are modified to [num_objectives x alpha] and
[num_objectives x beta] matrices, respectively.
 The MultiObjfun function, which represents the
multiple objective fitness function, is called for each
flow and neighborhood position to evaluate the
objectives. It returns a row vector of fitness values.
 The fitness values for each flow and neighborhood
are calculated using the weighted sum method. The
)
(8) weights matrix, representing the weights for each
objective, is multiplied element-wise with the
objective values, and the sum is taken to obtain the
fitness value. This is done for both fitness_flow and
fitness_neighbor matrices. This therefore transforms
the multi-objective problem into a single objective
by using weights.
 The sorting of positions and fitness values is
performed based on the calculated fitness values for
each flow.
 The Convergence Curve matrix is modified to store
the archive of objective values at each iteration. It
becomes a [num_objectives x maxiter] matrix.
The visualization of the Pareto front is added using scatter
plots. If num_objectives is less than 3, a 2D scatter plot is
used to show objectives 1 and 2. Otherwise, a 3D scatter plot
is used to show objectives 1, 2, and 3.
3.1.2 Pseudocode and Flowchart
(9)
Initialize all parameters
Initialize the population of flows
Evaluate fitness function for each flow based on weighted
sum of objectives
For 1 iter = 1: maxiter
For 2 I = 1: alpha
For 3 j = 1: beta
Produce the positions of neighbors
around each flow
Determining the best neighbor.
End For 3
If 1 (the best neighbor has a better objective
function than that of the current flow)
 Calculate the velocity of flow and
move current flow to to best neighbor
Else
Generate random integer number r
If 2 (Flow_fitnessI < Flow_fitness(i))
Flow to move to rth flow
Else
Flow move to rth best flow
End If 2
End If 1
Update Best_X if there is a better solution
End For 2
iter = iter + 1
End For 1

Figure 3.3: Flowchart of the MOFDA algorithm

3.2 Mathematical Modelling of the MOFDA problem
In mathematics, maximization and minimization problems
are essentially the same and can be transformed into each
other [20]. Therefore, the MOFDA problem can be defined
as an optimization problem that includes the
following; n decision variables, m objective functions, and
several constraints. The mathematical model is expressed as
follows.
Min F=¿ )
s . t g p ( s , c ) ≥0 , p=1,2, … … , P
h q ( s , c )=0 , q=1,2 , … ,Q where,
c = (c1, c2, …, cn) is a vector of decision variables, s is a
vector of dependent variables, gp(s,c) are inequality
constraints, hq(s,c) are equality constraints,
and P and Q represent the number of inequality constraints
and equality constraints, respectively.
3.2.1 Objective Functions and Constraints
Figure 3.4: Multi-area power grid
Consider a power grid covering N number of areas. Our
problem is, for a given load demand PD, find the set of Pi s
which minimizes both the total cost function and power loss
function.
C T =C 1 ( P 1) + C2 ( P2 ) +… … … .+C N ( P N ) (11)
Where, P1, P2, …. PN represent the generation dispatch for
each area
Subject to the constraints
P D−( P1 + P2 +… … … .+ P N ) =0 (12)
Pimin ≤ Pi ≤ P imax (13)
Where, Pimin is the minimum power generated in each area
and Pimax is the maximum power generated in each area.
Two objective functions are defined to represent the
competing goals of the optimization problem:
(10)  f1: Cost of the grid, which is the total generation
cost considering the generation dispatch in each
area.
 f2: Losses in the grid, which represents the total
power losses in the transmission lines between
areas.
The aim is to find the Pareto optimal solutions (optimum
value of generation dispatch for each area) that offers the
best trade-off between minimizing f1 and f2.
Minimize Generation Costs (f1): The objective is to
minimize the total generation cost for the multi-area power
grid. The generation cost for each area is calculated from
relation (11) by multiplying the power generated ( x i) with
the respective generation cost ( gencost s i) in each area. The
total generation cost is the sum of the individual costs for all
areas. Mathematically, the generation cost objective function
can be represented as:
N
f 1 ( x )=∑ x i∗gencost si (14)
i=1
Minimize Power Losses (f2): Another objective is to
minimize the total power losses in the multi-area power grid.
Power losses occur during transmission between different
areas and are determined by the transmission loss
coefficients (losscoefficien t ij) between each pair of areas. The
power losses are calculated based on the power flow (
power flowij) between areas and the corresponding loss
coefficients. Mathematically, the power loss objective
function can be represented as:
N N
f 2 ( x )=∑ ∑ power flowij∗losscoefficien t ij ¿ 15)
i=1 j=1
Functions f 1 ( x )∧f 2 ( x )are then represented as
F 1 ( s , c ) , F 2 ( s , c ) from equation 10 as:
Min F=¿ ) (16)
3.3 Multi-area power grid Optimization
To minimize both the power generation costs and power
losses in a multi-area power grid, the MOFDA is applied.
The modified algorithm aims to find an optimal solution i.e.,
generation dispatch that achieves the best trade-off between
minimizing both generation costs and power losses,
considering the constraints of the multi-area power grid.
Below is the code explanation of the multi_area grid
function to be optimized
Inputs:
 x: A vector of generation dispatch for each
generating station. It represents the decision variable
for the optimization problem.
 area_loads: A vector of length num_areas
containing the loads in each area of the power grid.
 gen_costs: A vector of size num_areas containing
the costs of generating power in each area.
 transmission_loss_coeff: A matrix of size
num_areas x num_areas containing the
transmission loss coefficients between each pair of
areas.
Outputs:
 f1: The cost of the grid, which is one of the objective
values.
 f2: The losses in the grid, which is the other
objective value.
Explanation:
1. The function begins by loading the grid parameters
from the params structure, which contains
area_loads, gen_costs, and loss_coefficient.
multiplies the power flow (power_flow(i, j)) with
the corresponding transmission loss coefficient
2. Initially, f1 and f2 are set to infinity as default
values.
3. The function checks if the sum of the generation
dispatch x is greater than or equal to the sum of the
area loads (area_loads). This condition ensures that
the generation dispatch meets the grid load. If the
condition is not met, the default values of f1 and f2
remain unchanged.
4. If the generation dispatch meets the grid load, the
function proceeds to calculate the total generation
cost for each area. It multiplies the generation
dispatch x with the corresponding generation costs
(gen_costs) using element-wise multiplication (.*),
and then sums up the results. The total generation
cost is stored in the variable
total_generation_cost.
5. Next, the function calculates the available remaining
supply and demand in each area. It initializes demand
and supply vectors with zeros, and then determines
the surplus or deficit of power by subtracting
area_loads from x. If the difference is positive, it
means there is surplus supply (supply is updated),
and if the difference is negative, it means there is a
demand deficit (demand is updated).
6. The power flow matrix (power_flow) is initialized
with zeros. This matrix will store the distribution of
power from supply to demand in each area.
7. The function proceeds to offset the demand from the
available power. It iterates over each demand and
supply combination, and if the supply is greater than
or equal to the demand, it allocates the entire demand
to that supply, updates the supply and demand values
accordingly, and stores the demand value in the
corresponding position of power_flow. If the supply
is less than the demand, it allocates the entire supply
to that demand, updates the supply and demand
values, and stores the supply value in power_flow.
8. After offsetting the demand, the function computes
the total loss in the grid. It initializes total_loss
with zero and then iterates over each demand and
supply combination. For each combination, it
(loss_coefficient(i, j)) and adds it to the
total_loss.
 MALO MOGOA MOBA

9. F1Finally, theF2function Fitnessthe

returns sum two F1
objective F2
values: Fitness
Two sum
objectives: F1
Fitness
Schaffer,
Poloni, sum
Fonseca F2
Kursawe,
8.95E-01 1.11E+00 2.01E+00 2.19E+00 1.82E+00 4.01E+00 1.00E+00
2.00E+00 1.00E+00
f1 (the total generation cost) and f2 (the total loss). Fleming,4.03E+00
ZDT1, ZDT2, ZDT3, ZDT4, ZDT5 and ZDT6
1.06E+00 9.45E-01 2.00E+00 1.91E+00 2.12E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.00E+00
9.14E-01 1.09E+00 2.00E+00 1.77E+00 2.28E+00 4.05E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.00E+00

4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

1.02E+00 9.83E-01 2.00E+00 2.33E+00 1.72E+00Three objectives:
4.06E+00 Viennet
1.00E+002 and1.00E+00
Viennet 3 2.00E+00
9.84E-01 1.02E+00 2.00E+00 2.68E+00 1.42E+00 4.11E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.00E+00
1.11E+00 8.97E-01 2.01E+00 1.40E+00 2.73E+00
In this study, fifteen benchmark functions with different To conduct an accurate analysis, the competing 2.00E+00
4.13E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+00
objectives
1.07E+00 9.33E-01 2.00E+00 1.40E+00 2.73E+00 4.13E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.00E+00
number of objectives 9.77E-01
1.02E+00 were first used2.00E+00
to validate the
1.40E+00 2.73E+00
were allocated
4.13E+00
equal1.00E+00
weights and the algorithm2.00E+00
1.00E+00
was run 10
2.74E+00times with parameters alpha = 50,1.00E+00
beta = 3 and 100
efficiency9.84E-01
of the MOFDA 1.02E+00 2.00E+00
as compared 1.40E+00
to other known 4.13E+00 1.00E+00 2.00E+00
9.96E-01 1.00E+00 2.00E+00 1.39E+00 2.74E+00iterations (best parameters
4.14E+00 1.00E+00tested1.00E+00
for all benchmark
2.00E+00
optimization algorithms i.e., MOPSO,
Pareto Mean GA-MUL, MALO
2.00E+00 Pareto Mean 4.09E+00 Pareto Mean 2.00E+00
[21], MOGOA [22], MOBA [23], MOGWO functions). For each multi-objective function listed above,
Standard Deviation 2.33E-03 , Standard
MOAHA, Deviation 4.95E-02 Standard Deviation 4.47E-11
MOWOA, MOAVOA and MOFA. The MOFDA algorithm the average fitness sum and standard deviation were
was then used to optimize a multi-area power grid after calculated and tabulated in table 4.1. The pareto front and
which comparative analysis was done. The computer used in convergence curves for different test functions are also
this research was a 64-bit system HP with two Intel provided in figure 4.1.
processors having a frequency of 2.1 GHz and 8 GB RAM.

4.1 Benchmark Testing

The multi-objective benchmark functions used are bi-

objective and tri-objective and are classified as shown .
Tables 4.1: Fitness values Benchmark Functions

Schaffer(F1(x), F2(x))

MOFDA MOPSO GA-MUL

F1 F2 Fitness sum F1 F2 Fitness sum F1 F2 Fitness sum
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.00E+00 1.00E+00 9.96E-01 2.00E+00 8.28E-01 1.19E+00 2.02E+00
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.00E+00 1.00E+00 9.99E-01 2.00E+00 1.10E+00 9.05E-01 2.00E+00
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.00E+00 1.00E+00 9.97E-01 2.00E+00 8.25E-01 1.19E+00 2.02E+00
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.00E+00 9.99E-01 1.00E+00 2.00E+00 9.80E-01 1.02E+00 2.00E+00
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.00E+00 1.01E+00 9.93E-01 2.00E+00 9.90E-01 1.01E+00 2.00E+00
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.00E+00 9.97E-01 1.00E+00 2.00E+00 6.69E-01 1.40E+00 2.07E+00
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.00E+00 1.00E+00 9.98E-01 2.00E+00 1.44E+00 6.40E-01 2.08E+00
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.00E+00 9.97E-01 1.00E+00 2.00E+00 8.78E-01 1.13E+00 2.01E+00
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.00E+00 9.99E-01 1.00E+00 2.00E+00 1.14E+00 8.72E-01 2.01E+00
MOGWO MOAHA MOWOA
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.00E+00 1.00E+00 9.99E-01 2.00E+00 9.53E-01 1.05E+00 2.00E+00
F1
Pareto Mean F2 Fitness sum F1
Pareto Mean F2 Fitness 2.00E+00
sum F1
Pareto Mean F2 Fitness 2.02E+00
sum
2.00E+00
Standard Deviation1.24E+00
7.87E-01 2.03E+00
0.00E+00 Standard Deviation 9.93E-01
1.01E+00 2.00E+00
3.16E-05 Standard Deviation 1.02E+00
9.80E-01 2.00E+00
2.87E-02
8.30E-01 1.19E+00 2.02E+00 9.66E-01 1.03E+00 2.00E+00 1.04E+00 9.62E-01 2.00E+00
8.01E-01 1.22E+00 2.02E+00 1.05E+00 9.52E-01 2.00E+00 9.47E-01 1.05E+00 2.00E+00
9.68E-01 1.03E+00 2.00E+00 9.17E-01 1.09E+00 2.00E+00 1.08E+00 9.25E-01 2.00E+00
7.80E-01 1.25E+00 2.03E+00 1.11E+00 8.97E-01 2.01E+00 9.12E-01 1.09E+00 2.00E+00
8.18E-01 1.20E+00 2.02E+00 8.63E-01 1.15E+00 2.01E+00 1.12E+00 8.86E-01 2.01E+00
5.74E-01 1.54E+00 2.12E+00 1.15E+00 8.60E-01 2.01E+00 8.80E-01 1.13E+00 2.01E+00
5.98E-01 1.51E+00 2.10E+00 8.28E-01 1.19E+00 2.02E+00 1.15E+00 8.61E-01 2.01E+00
5.84E-01 1.53E+00 2.11E+00 1.22E+00 8.05E-01 2.02E+00 8.29E-01 1.19E+00 2.02E+00
5.74E-01 1.54E+00 2.12E+00 8.02E-01 1.22E+00 2.02E+00 1.20E+00 8.17E-01 2.02E+00
Pareto Mean 2.06E+00 Pareto Mean 2.01E+00 Pareto Mean 2.01E+00
Standard Deviation 4.93E-02 Standard Deviation 8.32E-03 Standard Deviation 6.40E-03
 MOAVOA MOFA
F1 F2 Fitness sum F1 F2 Fitness sum
9.92E-01 1.01E+00 2.00E+00 1.03E+00 9.73E-01 2.00E+00
9.92E-01 1.01E+00 2.00E+00 9.68E-01 1.03E+00 2.00E+00
9.73E-01 1.03E+00 2.00E+00 9.68E-01 1.03E+00 2.00E+00
9.92E-01 1.01E+00 2.00E+00 1.04E+00 9.58E-01 2.00E+00
9.92E-01 1.01E+00 2.00E+00 9.11E-01 1.09E+00 2.00E+00
9.92E-01 1.01E+00 2.00E+00 9.08E-01 1.10E+00 2.00E+00
9.92E-01 1.01E+00 2.00E+00 1.11E+00 8.92E-01 2.01E+00
9.92E-01 1.01E+00 2.00E+00 1.12E+00 8.87E-01 2.01E+00
9.92E-01 1.01E+00 2.00E+00 1.18E+00 8.37E-01 2.01E+00
9.73E-01 1.03E+00 2.00E+00 8.33E-01 1.18E+00 2.02E+00
Pareto Mean 2.00E+00 Pareto Mean 2.01E+00
Standard Deviation 1.47E-04 Standard Deviation 5.56E-03

Viennet2 (F1(x), F2(x), F3(x))

MOFDA MOPSO
F1 F2 F3 Fitness sum F1 F2 F3 Fitness sum
3.1394 -16.9687 -12.8884 -2.67E+01 3.14E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01
3.1394 -16.9687 -12.8884 -2.67E+01 3.13E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01
3.1394 -16.9687 -12.8884 -2.67E+01 3.15E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01
3.1394 -16.9687 -12.8884 -2.67E+01 3.14E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01
3.1394 -16.9687 -12.8884 -2.67E+01 3.13E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01
3.1394 -16.9687 -12.8884 -2.67E+01 3.15E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01
3.1394 -16.9687 -12.8884 -2.67E+01 3.14E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01
3.1394 -16.9687 -12.8884 -2.67E+01 3.13E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01
3.1394 -16.9687 -12.8884 -2.67E+01 3.13E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01
3.1394 -16.9687 -12.8884 -2.67E+01 3.15E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01
Pareto Mean -2.67E+01 Pareto Mean -2.67E+01
Standard Deviation 3.77E-15 Standard Deviation 3.70E-03

MALO MOGOA
F1 F2 F3 Fitness sum F1 F2 F3 Fitness sum
3.11E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.28E+01 -2.67E+01 3.14E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01
3.17E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01 3.14E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01
3.16E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01 3.14E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01
3.16E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01 3.13E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.28E+01 -2.67E+01
3.15E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01 3.10E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.28E+01 -2.67E+01
3.17E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01 3.14E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.28E+01 -2.67E+01
3.19E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01 3.14E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.28E+01 -2.67E+01
3.16E+00 -1.69E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01 3.10E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.28E+01 -2.67E+01
3.13E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01 3.11E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.28E+01 -2.67E+01
3.13E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01 3.10E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.28E+01 -2.67E+01
Pareto Mean -2.67E+01 Pareto Mean -2.67E+01
Standard Deviation 6.62E-03 Standard Deviation 1.01E-02

MOBA MOAHA
F1 F2 F3 Fitness sum F1 F2 F3 Fitness sum
3.14E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01 3.14E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01
3.14E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01 3.13E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01
3.14E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01 3.15E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01
3.14E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01 3.14E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01
3.14E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01 3.13E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01
3.14E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01 3.15E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01
3.14E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01 3.14E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01
3.14E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01 3.13E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01
3.14E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01 3.13E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01
3.14E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01 3.15E+00 -1.70E+01 -1.29E+01 -2.67E+01
Pareto Mean -2.67E+01 Pareto Mean -2.67E+01
Standard Deviation 1.07E-08 Standard Deviation 3.70E-03

IMAGES FROM MOFDA CODE SIMULATION

Figure(s) 4.1: Pareto fronts and convergence curves for benchmark functions
Schaffer
Schaffer Pareto Front
4.5 Convergence Curve
3.5
MOFDA
4

3.5
Pareto weigted fitness sum

3
3

2.5
F1

1.5 2.5

0.5

0 2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 20 40 60 80 100
F2 Iterations

Kursawe
Kursawe Pareto Front Convergence Curve
2 -17
MOFDA
-18
0
-19
Pareto weigted fitness sum

-2
-20

-21
-4
F1

-22
-6
-23

-8 -24

-25
-10
-26

-12 -27
-20 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 0 20 40 60 80 100
F2 Iterations
 ZDT1
ZDT1 Pareto Front
3
Convergence Curve
3.5
MOFDA
2.5
3

Pareto weigted fitness sum

2
2.5

F1
1.5
2

1
1.5

0.5
1

0 0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 20 40 60 80 100
F2 Iterations

ZDT2
ZDT2 Pareto Front
4.5 Convergence Curve
6
MOFDA
4 5.5

3.5 5
Pareto weigted fitness sum

3 4.5

4
2.5
F1

3.5
2
3
1.5
2.5
1
2

0.5 1.5

0 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 20 40 60 80 100
F2 Iterations

ZDT3
 12 ZDT3 Pareto Front Convergence Curve
10 5
14
MOFDA
4
12
3
10

Pareto weigted fitness sum

2
8
1
6

F1
4

2 -1

0 -2

-2 -3

-4 -4

-5
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 -20 -19 -18 -17 -16 -15 -14 -13 -12 -11
F2 Iterations

ZDT6
Convergence Curve
9
ZDT6 Pareto Front MOFDA
9
8
8
7

Pareto weigted fitness sum

7
6
6
5
5
F1

4
4

3
3

2
2

1 1

0 0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 20 40 60 80 100
F2 Iterations

Viennet2

Convergence Curve
-10
MOFDA
-12

-14
Pareto weigted fitness sum

-16

-18

-20

-22

-24

-26

-28
0 20 40 60 80 100
Iterations

Viennet3
 Convergence Curve
16.25
MOFDA

16.2

Pareto weigted fitness sum

16.15

16.1

16.05

16

15.95

15.9
0 20 40 60 80 100
Iterations

The table shows the standard deviation and Fitness sum
fitness values for ten runs of each algorithm. The algorithms
are run 10 times to see their effectiveness in achieving a
global minimum. For all the test functions, the MOFDA
proves to achieve a global minimum as depicted by the very
small standard deviation (implying that the fitness values are
tightly clustered around the mean) as compared to other
algorithms with higher standard deviations which are
sometimes trapped in their local minima’s. This implies that
the MOFDA has a higher level of optimization stability and
consistency. Moreover, MOFDA consistently outperforms
other algorithms as it obtains competitive Pareto means,
showing a solid balance of objectives and effective
optimization signifying more consistent and dependable
optimized results.
MOPSO and GA-MUL also perform relatively well, with
Fitness sums that are comparable to MOFDA in most
circumstances. They do, however, exhibit slightly higher
standard deviations, indicating some inconsistency in their
outcomes. MOBA, MOAHA, and MOWOA also perform
well, but with somewhat greater Fitness sums and standard
deviations than MOFDA, indicating a lesser optimization
potential and stability.
In addition, plots of the Pareto fronts and convergence
curves for benchmark functions are included in figure(s) 7.1.
The Pareto fronts represent the distribution of solutions that
provide the optimal balance between the objectives,
illustrating the trade-off between the often conflicting
objectives. The convergence curves represent the algorithms'
convergence behavior across optimization iterations,
illustrating how rapidly they approach optimal solutions.

4.2 Multi-area power grid Simulation Results

The IEEE set are modelled for load balancing. However, no set for generation + load balancing is free or availed. To cater for
these, an arbitrary dataset was modelled following the IEEE buss schemes.
Used algorithm parameters; alpha=50, beta=3, weights = [1,1], Maximum iteration=100
Table 4.2: Specifications for the multi-area setup

Minimum Output Maximum Output Generation Cost Area Load

power [kW] power [kW] [kSh/kWh] [kW]

Area 1 200 800 30 100

Area 2 50 500 60 300

Area 3 100 600 70 500

 Area 4 200 300 62 700

Area 5 300 600 45 850

Power Loss Coefficient Matrix for the 5 Area setup is given as

[ ]
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.145
0.81 0.0 0.3 0.75 0.35
0.65 0.8 0.0 0.32 0.05
0.45 0.25 0.6 0.0 0.12
0.64 0.85 0.05 0.62 0.00

Using the parameters above, the results of table 4.3 were extracted for 10 runs of the algorithms.
For the given parameters, optimal generation dispatch that satisfies the power grid constraints in each area is

Po =[ 800500 250 300 600 ] kW

The best fitness values for the generation costs and grid losses and their Fitness sum are shown in tables 4.3.

Tables 4.3: Fitness values of optimized multi-area power grid

MOFDA MOGOA MOAHA

Gen Costs Grid Losses Fitness sum Gen Costs Grid Losses Fitness sum Gen Costs Grid Losses Fitness sum
1.17E+05 5.45E+02
MOBA 117644.50 1.17E+05 5.39E+02
MOWOA 117841.43 1.18E+05 5.34E+02
MOPSO 118065.29
1.17E+05 5.45E+02 117644.50 1.17E+05 5.39E+02 117859.45 1.18E+05 5.33E+02 118192.99
Gen Costs Grid Losses Fitness sum Gen Costs Grid Losses Fitness sum Gen Costs Grid Losses Fitness sum
1.17E+05 5.45E+02 117644.50 1.17E+05 5.39E+02 117859.45 1.18E+05 5.32E+02 118238.09
1.18E+05 5.34E+02 118065.29 1.18E+05 5.28E+02 118562.99 1.18E+05 5.03E+02 1.19E+05
1.17E+05 5.45E+02 117644.50 1.17E+05 5.39E+02 117859.86 1.18E+05 5.31E+02 118350.43
1.18E+05 5.33E+02 118192.99 1.18E+05 5.24E+02 118657.31 1.18E+05 4.75E+02 1.19E+05
1.17E+05 5.45E+02 117644.50 1.17E+05 5.39E+02 117863.10 1.18E+05 5.26E+02 118356.94
1.18E+05 5.32E+02 118238.09 1.19E+05 4.46E+02 119315.23 1.19E+05 4.39E+02 1.19E+05
1.17E+05 5.45E+02 117644.50 1.17E+05 5.39E+02 117865.05 1.18E+05 5.23E+02 118443.80
1.18E+05 5.31E+02 118350.43 1.19E+05 4.94E+02 119403.07 1.19E+05 4.10E+02 1.19E+05
1.17E+05 5.45E+02 117644.50 1.17E+05 5.39E+02 117872.68 1.18E+05 5.23E+02 118471.07
1.18E+05 5.26E+02 118356.94 1.19E+05 4.31E+02 119642.95 1.19E+05 4.01E+02 1.20E+05
1.17E+05 5.45E+02 117644.50 1.17E+05 5.39E+02 117872.96 1.18E+05 5.20E+02 118501.67
1.18E+05 5.23E+02 118443.80 1.19E+05 4.88E+02 119718.77 1.20E+05 3.75E+02 1.20E+05
1.17E+05 5.45E+02 117644.50 1.17E+05 5.39E+02 117873.16 1.18E+05 5.10E+02 118592.51
1.18E+05 5.23E+02 118471.07 1.19E+05 4.84E+02 119755.32 1.20E+05 3.66E+02 1.21E+05
1.17E+05 5.45E+02 117644.50 1.17E+05 5.39E+02 117886.23 1.18E+05 4.96E+02 118643.00
1.18E+05 5.20E+02 118501.67 1.19E+05 4.88E+02 119800.34 1.21E+05 3.58E+02 1.21E+05
Pareto Mean 1.18E+05 Pareto Mean 1.18E+05 Pareto Mean 1.18E+05
1.18E+05 5.10E+02 118592.51 1.20E+05 4.62E+02 119975.22 1.22E+05 3.44E+02 1.23E+05
Standard Deviation 0.00E+00 Standard Deviation 1.20E+01 Standard Deviation 1.82E+02
1.18E+05 4.96E+02 118643.00 1.20E+05 3.61E+02 120287.40 1.23E+05 3.32E+02 1.23E+05
Pareto Mean 1.18E+05 Diff With
Pareto MOFDA
Mean 1.20E+05 Diff With
Pareto MOFDA
Mean 1.20E+05
220.84 741.08
Standard Deviation 1.82E+02 Standard Deviation 5.48E+02 Standard Deviation 1.63E+03
 Diff With MOFDA 741.08 Diff With MOFDA 1867.36 Diff With MOFDA 2750.44634

GA-MUL MOGWO MOAVOA

Gen Costs Grid Losses Fitness sum Gen Costs Grid Losses Fitness sum Gen Costs Grid Losses Fitness sum
1.18E+05 5.03E+02 1.19E+05 6.54E+05 0.00E+00 654151.07 6.54E+05 0.00E+00 6.54E+05
1.18E+05 4.75E+02 1.19E+05 6.54E+05 0.00E+00 654151.07 6.54E+05 0.00E+00 6.54E+05
1.19E+05 4.39E+02 1.19E+05 6.54E+05 0.00E+00 654151.07 6.54E+05 0.00E+00 6.54E+05
1.19E+05 4.10E+02 1.19E+05 6.54E+05 0.00E+00 654151.07 6.54E+05 0.00E+00 6.54E+05
1.19E+05 4.01E+02 1.20E+05 6.54E+05 0.00E+00 654151.07 6.54E+05 0.00E+00 6.54E+05
1.20E+05 3.75E+02 1.20E+05 6.54E+05 0.00E+00 654151.07 6.54E+05 0.00E+00 6.54E+05
1.20E+05 3.66E+02 1.21E+05 6.54E+05 0.00E+00 654151.07 6.54E+05 0.00E+00 6.54E+05
1.21E+05 3.58E+02 1.21E+05 6.54E+05 0.00E+00 654151.07 6.54E+05 0.00E+00 6.54E+05
1.22E+05 3.44E+02 1.23E+05 6.54E+05 0.00E+00 654151.07 6.54E+05 0.00E+00 6.54E+05
1.23E+05 3.32E+02 1.23E+05 6.54E+05 0.00E+00 654151.07 6.54E+05 0.00E+00 6.54E+05
Pareto Mean 1.20E+05 Pareto Mean 6.54E+05 Pareto Mean 6.54E+05
Standard Deviation 1.63E+03 Standard Deviation 1.23E-10 Standard Deviation 1.23E-10
Diff With MOFDA 2750.45 Diff With MOFDA 536506.57 Diff With MOFDA 536506.33

Figure 4.1 Shows the pareto front obtained for the multi-area power grid setup

Pareto Front

MOFDA
555

550

545
Transmission Losses

540

535

530

525

520

515

510
1.17 1.18 1.19 1.2 1.21 1.22
Generation Costs 5
10

Figure 4.2: Pareto front obtained by MOFDA

Depending on the objective preference of engineers and grid CONCLUSION

operators, varying weights can be assigned to the objectives
and several single objective optimizations conducted to
obtain different points on the pareto front. A good
distribution of points along the front is not assured, though.
This project has studied the application of Multi-Objective
Flow Direction Algorithm (MOFDA) to solve the load
generation balancing problem while minimizing generation
cost and power losses in a multi-area power grid. In this
regard, the algorithm has been applied for solving a case
scenario. The power demand in each area, limits on the
generated power along with other constraints of the system
are considered. For comparison purpose, the results of
MOFDA are compared with results of other algorithms. The
MOFDA shows the best performance in optimizing load
generation balancing. This approach shows promise as a
valuable tool for power grid operators and planners seeking
to optimize load generation balancing in a multi-area power
grid setup.
REFERENCES

[1] Chudy, D., & Leśniak, A., Advantages of Applying Large-scale Energy Storage For Load Generation Balancing, 2021.

[2] Frunt, J., Analysis of balancing requirements in future sustainable and reliable power, 2011.

[3] Fonseca, Carlos M., and Peter J. Fleming., "Multiobjective optimization." Handbook of evolutionary computation 1", 1997.

[4] Han, H., Zhang, L., Yinga, A., & Qiao, J. , Adaptive multiple selection strategy for multi-objective particle swarm optimization.
Information Sciences, 2023, pp. 624, 235-25.

[5] Chakrabarti, A., & Halder, S., Power system analysis: operation and control. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.., 2022.

[6] Grainger, J. J., & Stevenson Jr, W. D., Power system analysis. McGraw-Hill series in electrical and computer engineering., 1994.

[7] Wang, X. F., Song, Y., & Irving, M. , Modern power systems analysis. Springer Science & Business Media., 2010.

[8] He, P., Li, M., Zhao, L., Venkatesh, B., & Li, H. (2016)., Water-filling exact solutions for load balancing of smart power grid systems.
IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 9(2), ., 2016.

[9] Alagoz, Izzet, et al., ” Turkish Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems, vol. 1, no. 1, AVES Publishing Co., May 2021, pp. 1–
11., May 2021.

[10] Al-Shetwi, A. Q. , Sustainable development of renewable energy integrated power sector: Trends, environmental impacts, and
recent challenges. Science of The Total Environment, 153645., 2022.

[11] Karimi, H., Jadid, S., & Makui, A., Stochastic energy scheduling of multi-microgrid systems considering independence
performance index and energy storage systems. Journal of Energy Storage, 33, 102083, 2021.

[12] Moghbeli, M., et al. , “Evaluating the Impact of Energy Efficiency Programs on Generation Maintenance Scheduling.”
International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 119, Elsevier BV, July 2020.

[13] Fliege, J., & Werner, R. (2014). , Robust multiobjective optimization & applications in portfolio optimization. European Journal of
Operational Research, pp. 422-433..

[14] Coello, Carlos A. Coello., “Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and
Knowledge Discovery, vol. 1, no. 5, Wiley,, July 2011, pp. 444-47.

[15] Shirguppikar, Shailesh S., and Uday A. Dabade. , “Experimental Investigation of Dry Electric Discharge Machining (Dry EDM)
Process on Bright Mild Steel.” Materials Today: Proceedings, vol. 5, no. 2, Elsevier BV , pp. 7595–603., 2018.

[16] Doblas, D., Nebro, A. J., López-Ibáñez, M., García-Nieto, J., & Coello Coello, C. A, Automatic Design of Multi-objective Particle
Swarm Optimizers. In Swarm Intelligence: 13th International Conference, ANTS 2022, Málaga, Spain, November 2, 2022,
October. , pp. 287-308..

[17] Abualigah, L., Shehab, M., Alshinwan, M., Mirjalili, S., & Elaziz, M. A., Ant lion optimizer: a comprehensive survey of its variants
 and applications. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 2021.

[18] Mirjalili, S., & Mirjalili, S., Genetic algorithm. Evolutionary Algorithms and Neural Networks: Theory and Applications., 2019.

[19] Karami, H., Anaraki, M. V., Farzin, S., & Mirjalili, S. (2021, June). , Flow Direction Algorithm (FDA): A Novel Optimization Approach
for Solving Optimization Problems. Computers & Industrial Engineering, (2021 June).

[20] Chen, G.; Yi, X.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, H., Applications of multi-objective dimension-based firefly algorithm to optimize the power
losses, emission, and cost in power systems. Appl. Soft Comput., 2018, p. 322–342.

[21] Mirjalili, S., et al., "Ant lion optimizer: a comprehensive survey of its variants and applications. Archives of Computational
Methods in Engineering," 2021.

[22] Meraihi, Y., Gabis, A. B., Mirjalili, S., & Ramdane-Cherif, A. (2021)., "Grasshopper optimization algorithm: theory, variants, and
applications.," 2021.

[23] Meng, Z., Yıldız, B. S., Li, G., Zhong, C., Mirjalili, S., & Yildiz, A. R., "A comparison of metaheuristic multiobjective reliability-based
design optimization.," 2022.

[24] S. J. P. &. S. S. Mirjalili, Multi-objective ant lion optimizer: a multi-objective optimization algorithm for solving engineering
problems. Applied Intelligence,, 2017, pp. 79-95.