J. Inst. Eng. India Ser.
B (February 2022) 103(1):107–117
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40031-021-00645-y
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION
Improved based Differential Evolution Algorithm using New
Environment Adaption Operator
Shailendra Pratap Singh1
Received: 20 November 2020 / Accepted: 10 June 2021 / Published online: 23 July 2021
 The Institution of Engineers (India) 2021
Abstract In this work, a novel operator-based differential
evolution (DE) algorithm has been proposed. The proposed
approach has been inspired by the internal adaption (en-
vironment) of the search space. Therefore, maintaining
environment (vectors) for the search space can be achieved
by introducing the better fitness of candidate solution. In
the proposed approach, candidate solutions are multiplied
with the different parameter values, which depend on the
nature of the problem and available counterbalancing
resources. The proposed variant termed an internal adap-
tion-based environment is considered in the existing
mutation and crossover operators to provide more diversity
for selecting the effective mutant solutions. In the experi-
mental analysis, the proposed approach is compared with
the five modern DE variants and tested on benchmark
function (f1 to f24) on 20, and 40 dimensions. In addition,
it is also verified by hypothesis testing in terms of the
minimum error. From the obtained results, it is observed
that the proposed algorithm is found to be a better target
value in terms of the minimum number of function eval-
uation and statistical functions. It also validates that the
proposed algorithm has achieved a reasonable convergence
rate and diversity on 20 and 40 dimensions.
Keywords Adaptation  Optimization 
Evolutionary algorithm
& Shailendra Pratap Singh
shail2007singh@gmail.com
1 methodology, which is similar to genetic algorithms
Department of Computer Science and Engineering,
Bundelkhand Institute of Engineering and Technology,
Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh, India
Introduction
Nature-inspired optimization is the field of such study for
planning, simulation, and execution of problems using
scientific methodologies which are inspired by nature.
Meanwhile, practical applications are multidimensional
and nonlinear, and they require sophisticated optimization
implementations to handle such a curse of dimensionality.
Nowadays, computer simulations are the vibrant imple-
mentation for resolving such optimization complications
through nature-inspired or meta-heuristic search
algorithms.
Meta-heuristic is a class of algorithms that are used for
the optimization of candidate solutions to discover, pro-
duce, select an optimized candidate solution that may
deliver a suitably better solution to an optimization prob-
lem. Meta-heuristics may feasibly make reasonable, con-
siderable, justifiable assumptions about the optimization
problem being solved by the concept of nature. Many
meta-heuristics algorithms are developed such as ant col-
ony optimization (ACO), particle swarm optimization
(PSO), artificial bee colony (ABC), and genetic algorithm
GA). The GA is a standard in optimization due to its nature
of finding global optima. The differential evolution (DE) is
an optimization algorithm like GA and is efficient in
finding the global minima of non-differentiable problems.
In this article, a novel mutation-based modified differential
evolution algorithm has been proposed. The original DE
[1] and [23] was anticipated by Rainer Storn and Kenneth
Price in 1995-96. The philosophy of DE was inspired by
natural evolution.
DE is basically a vector-centered meta-heuristic
because both the methodologies use the same kinds of
operations like crossover and mutation. It is a stochastic
123
108 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (February 2022) 103(1):107–117

search tendency to guide itself during the search process to

derive the optimized solution and it is worth mentioning
that it does not use the domain derivatives. In this, we can
say that it is a population-based and derivative-free
methodology. DE algorithm explain here:

Basic concepts of DE

The basic differential evolution algorithm [1, 2] is descri-

bed in algorithm 1. DE process goes through four steps,
i.e., initialization, mutation, crossover, and selection.

Initialization

In this process, all the population members are randomly

initialized between the lower and upper bound values. The
representation of target vector is shown in Eq. 1.
ai;G ¼ fa
~ ~1 ;i ;G ; ~ ~D ;i ;G g
a2 ;i ;G ; :::::::a ð1Þ
where NP is a population size of parameter vectors, i ¼ 1,
2, 3........NP, D is a dimension and G is a generation.

Mutation

DE generates new offspring by adding the weighted dif-

ference of two candidate solution trajectories to a third
trajectory. This process is termed as the mutation. This
operator is explained in the algorithm 1.
Crossover
After mutation, the crossover binomial operator is applied.
The binomial crossover is explained in the algorithm 1.
Selection
In this phase, the trial vector formed afterward mutation
and crossover are estimated. Then, the effectiveness of the
trial and target vector is equated and the fittest vector or
candidate is selected. If the trial vector produces an
insignificant fitness value, it may be optimized for the next
generations.
In this paper, modification of standard DE algorithm is
suggested named as improved based differential evolution
algorithm using environment adaption operator (IBDE). In
the IBDE algorithm, a novel new mutation operator is
devised. The IBDE algorithm makes use of a new mutation
strategy. This variant derives itself from the process of
environment factor which entirely invests in sustaining the
overall environment of the particular area against any
change in the external environment. This variant also aims
to give impetus to the convergence rate of the algorithm
and thereby retains the same diversity generated by the
environment factor during the initial generation in the
mutation operator. Diversity is taken as the internal and
external environment by proposed algorithms. The pro-
posed algorithm is tested for benchmark function (f1 to
f24) better than other variants of DE algorithms.

Related Works

The existing evolutionary approaches and advantage of

proposed approaches over existing are presented.
The experimental assessment of some DE variants to
solve optimization problems have been described [3]. The
main goal is to recognize which one of them is better to

123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (February 2022) 103(1):107–117
solve optimization, subject to features of the problem
domain. Eight different categories of DE variants are
executed on 13 benchmark problems. A set of statistical
examinations are also accomplished to get assurance on the
soundness of the outcomes.
A new local search trigonometric mutation has been
proposed for DE [4]. This alteration allows the algorithm to
achieve an improved trade-off between convergence and
robustness. In the literature [5], author proposed a
methodology for DE with the self-adaptive feature. This
method used a self-adaptive associated control parameter
for the algorithm and generated the trial vector.
The efficacy of some current population-direct search
algorithm approaches such as Random Search, DE, and GA
has been depicted [6]. Also, some improvement is made to
DE and to GA to improve their effectiveness and are tested
for different test problems.
In the literature [7], a new version of the DE algorithm
has been proposed for finding self-adaptive control
parameter settings. The outcomes demonstrate that the
algorithm with self-adaptive control parameter settings is
better as compared to the standard DE [8].
As per the researches [9], authors have examined the
consequences of varying population size on the quality of
generated candidate solutions and evaluated on 5 problem
sets opted from CEC. Outcomes include the effects of the
different populations with varying different dimensions,
and it has shown the considerable effect of population size
on the efficiency of DE.
In earlier investigations [10], two new, improved vari-
ants of DE have been proposed. The effectiveness of the
proposed methods is compared against original DE,
canonical PSO, and two PSO-variants. In the literature
[11], the article’s authors investigated that how DE can
work in parallel according to the ring topology and
improved convergence rate with added performance to the
technique.
An adaptive-based crossover local search (LS) operation
for the DE algorithm has been proposed by the researchers
[12]. LS is very beneficial in terms of planning an evolu-
tionary algorithm for the optimization problem. In this
paper, authors highlighted how the scheme can increase the
effectiveness of DE. The modified version is tested with the
different benchmark functions. Performance evaluations
with LS and with some well-known algorithms were also
presented. In the literature [13], authors proposed five new
mutation methods for the DE algorithm and are termed
MDE1, MDE2, MDE3, MDE4, and MDE5.
Various researchers [14] have studied different
replacement schemes in the DE through an experiment on
different standard test functions. In the literature [15], a
novel method composite DE (CoDE) has been proposed.
The methodology added an adaptive way to produce the
109
offspring by evolving 3 trial vector generations with the
use of three different control parameter settings. The
experimental outcome shows that CoDE provides the better
result.
As per the researches [16], new mutation strategy has
been proposed for the parent selection method of the
crossover in the DE. DE variation is achieved by incor-
porating JDE and JADE variants, and their performance is
improved. The effectiveness of the algorithm [17] is
evaluated by different sets of optimization test problems.
The outcomes determine that the projected process is better
in terms of computational time over the different standard
algorithms. In the literature [18], crossover rate repair
technique for the adaptive DE has been proposed. This
crossover rate in DE is refurbished by using the average
number of mutants. In earlier researches [19], a role
assignment (RA) method has been proposed. The RA
scheme uses fitness and positional information to dynam-
ically divide as a role having its own mutation. In the
literature [20], a new DE variant has been proposed with an
attractive self-adaptive strategy and hybrid mutation
methodology. The proposed method [21] is equated with
different DE variants. The statistical outcomes show that
the average performance of the proposed method is better
as compared to other standard algorithms.
As per the researches [23], suggestion is given for a new
heuristic approach to diminish nonlinear and non-differ-
entiable continuous space functions and also for signifying
that the new strategy merges faster with impetus than
existing computational techniques. In the literature [24], an
enhancement of optimization performance is suggested by
the way of a new DE algorithm which adapts a new
mutation method ‘‘DE/current-to-pbest.’’
The literature of the DE [29] and a survey of its many
variants of DE are explained. In the researches [30], an
adaptive version DE algorithm has been proposed and
evaluated on the 24 mathematical functions taken Black-
Box Optimization benchmark function. A suggestion for a
novel hybrid DE variant is proposed in the literature [31]
that contains two sub-variants: HMLSL and MLSL. This
algorithm has a high success rate and also is much faster
when it comes to hybrid algorithms.
In the literature [38], authors empirically examine the
selection strategy of solutions for the mutation (donor
vector) in DE. This algorithm is performed on wide
experimentation, and the authors suggest that some state-
of-the-art algorithms provided the better optimum value.
In the earlier researches [39], a cumulative population
distribution-based DE method has been proposed. The
proposed method has been applied to different variants of
DE for solving two sets of benchmark functions. In the
literature [40], covariance matrix learning has been pro-
posed and a bimodal distribution parameter setting
123
110
approach is proposed with the aim of balancing the
exploitation or exploration abilities of DE. The effective-
ness of the method is checked on twenty-five benchmark
functions. The investigational outcomes establish the effi-
ciency of the approach.
Advantages of Proposed Over Existing Approaches
List of advantages over the exiting approaches are shown
as follows [20, 39–44]:
• Proposed algorithm enhances the convergence rate of
global search space, in contrast to the existing
approaches [37] where convergence rate is low on
tested benchmark functions.
• This algorithm provides the balance in the environment
from local to the global area for different applications,
whereas, existing approaches not able to balance on
some of the tested benchmark functions [40].
• Existing methods [29–40] facing the problem of
stagnation after a certain number of iterations. For
resolving the issue, a new environment adaption
mutation operator for the DE algorithm is devised.
• Proposed algorithm also reduces the time complexity
and space complexity, therefore, it outperforms the
other tested optimization algorithms on standard bench-
mark functions [33–35].
Most of the above literature survey are facing the problem
of diversity, tuning parameter, premature convergence, and
stagnation after a certain number of iterations. Also, the
decrease convergence speed of these approaches is quite
slow in terms of the best optimum value. For resolving all
these issues, we have introduced a new environment
adaption operator for DE Algorithm, which is discussed in
the next section.
Proposed Approach: Improved based DE
Algorithm using new Environment Adaption
Operator (IBDE)
For the driving of the DE algorithm, the role of mutation
and crossover is quite important. Therefore, this paper uses
a mutation operator that dynamically updates the progress
of the algorithm. Convergence and diversity are an
important factor in determining a candidate solution from a
global search space. We cannot think of a better solution
unless the entire search location is initially searched cor-
rectly or at the later stages of evaluation. In DE, the key
feature of diversification maintenance goes to the mutant
operator, and in DE, diversity maintenance is performed by
a mutation operator as a new environment adaption. This
process is explained in the next section.
123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (February 2022) 103(1):107–117
Environment Adaption-based Mutation Operator
In this section, the proposed approach focuses on the
maintaining environment (vectors) for the search space that
can be achieved by introducing the better fitness of the
candidate solution. The objective of the proposed approach
is achieved by environment vectors (E1 and E2) which
maintain a better environment of search space. The envi-
ronment of DE can be preserved based on the environment
through these two equations Eq(4) and Eq(5).
E1 ¼ðvectorÞ  feasibleenvironment ð4Þ
E2 ¼ðvectorÞ  infeasibleenvironment  EF ð5Þ
where E1 and E2 are feasible and infeasible environment
vectors of global search space. The vector denotes the
current population of search space, and EF denotes the
environment factor. This factor defined according to the
internal environment vector, which is multiplied by EF
value (0.1 to 0.01) which is set between the interval 0.1 to
0.01. This value provides sufficient diversity to the current
vector and also improves the performance of convergence
speed. Therefore, when it is implicated in the local optimal
problem, sufficient required variation is obtained by the EF
value. The detailed description of the generation of new
donor vector methodology is as follows.
Generation of New Donor Vector(DV)
In this process, environmental optimization is used on the
current candidate solution in the search space, to generate
an environment optimization-based mutation scheme of
DE / BEST / 1. We define the common mutation operator
in equation (6) and feasible environments (E1 and E2) in
equation (7) and (8), respectively.
~ i;G ¼ ~
DV ar1i ;G þ d1  ða
~r2i ;G  ~
ar3i ;G Þ ð6Þ
Update the new mutation operator:
~ i;G ¼a
DV ~ ri ;G  E1
~ri ;G þ d1  ðE1 ~ ri ;G Þ ð7Þ
1 2 3
~ i;G ¼a
DV ~ ri ;G  E2
~r1i ;G þ d1  ðE2 ~ ri ;G Þ ð8Þ
2 3
where DV ~ i;G denote the mutant vector or donor vector,
i ¼ 1; 2; ::::p is population(P), and G is generation. ~ ar1i ;G
denotes the best random vector of current population, and
d1 denote the scale factor of mutation operator. ~ ar2i ;G and
~
ar3i ;G will be generated from the entire search space. E1 ~ ri ;G ,
2
~ ri ;G , E2
E1 ~ ri ;G , and E2
~ ri ;G are internal adaption environment
3 2 3
vectors of global search. These mutation strategies (equa-
tion 7 & 8) perform better to enhance the bandwidth of
diversity from search space when stagnation condition
arises with the adaption technique introduced through these
environments (E1 and E2).
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (February 2022) 103(1):107–117
Crossover
In this process, a conventional crossover operator is
adopted to generate the trail vector. In this operator, firstly,
the random number (rand) is generated between 0 and 1. If
rand is less than CR, then crossover is performed between
target vector and donor vector, otherwise, we will continue
with the target vector. This operator mainly focuses on the
tuning of parameters according to the internal and external
environment. In this paper, the crossover rate is considered
between 0.2 to 0.7.
Selection
After completion of the crossover operation, the selection
operator is applied to choose the solution based on the sur-
vival of the fittest strategy. In this process, three vectors are
taken into consideration, namely target vector, donor vector,
and trail vector. Afterward, the best fitness valued vector
among them is considered for the further evolution process.
IBDE Algorithm
The pseudocode of proposed IBDE algorithm is shown in
algorithm 2.
Experimental Framework and Analysis
In this section, a description of the test-bed, performance
indicators, and results obtained with respect to the perfor-
mance indicators are mentioned.
111
Description of Test-Bed and Performance Indicators
The Comparing Continuous Optimizers (COCO) is a
mathematically model platform. It performs searching in a
large space and compares the results with respect to global
parameters. The COCO benchmark function test-bed pro-
vides 24 noise-less test functions [22, 25–28]. The obtained
results of all these functions are verified in the COCO
framework based on the below-mentioned criteria:
1. Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test
2. ERT-Expected is running time Loss Ratio.
3. ECDF-Empirical cumulative distribution functions.
In the comparative analysis, the obtained results of the
proposed method (IBDE Algorithm) on 24 benchmark
functions(f1-f24) are compared with the existing DE
variants such as CPI-DE [33], TSDE [35], ToPDE [34],
JADEcr [18] and MPEDE [32] for all the dimensions 20-D
& 40-D. The control parameters considered by the
proposed algorithm are mentioned in Table 1.
Simulation Framework
The description of simulation framework considered to
execute the proposed and existing algorithms is as follows:
• The experiments were executed with Intel Core i7-
8850H Processor, 8 GB RAM and operating system
Windows 10 Pro 64 bit.
• The IBDE algorithm is tested on twenty-four bench-
mark functions (f1-f24) using the COCO platform.
These functions tested in given search space, i.e., [5, -
5]D , where D denotes the dimension.
• The proposed algorithm is executed 20 times, and
average results are taken into consideration for the
comparative analysis.
• Initialize population of all the test functions is 100. The
exploration and exploitation steps are performed over it
either for the maximization and minimization problem.
• The minimization problem has been considered accord-
ing to the benchmark functions (f1-f24), as given in
Table 2.
Table 1 Control parameters of algorithm 2
Sr. No. Parameter Type
1 Population size(NP) 100
2 Mutation(scale factor) d[0-2]
3 Crossover rate Cr[0-1]
4 Dimension [20, & 40]
5 FEs Function evaluations
6 Environment factor (EF) Rand[0.1–0.01]
123
112 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (February 2022) 103(1):107–117

Table 2 Benchmark Function

Sr. No. Benchmark functions Features Group-based functions

1 f1 f1 is related to the sphere function Group (f1-f5) to separable

2 f2 f2 is related to the Ellipsoidal function
3 f3 f3 is related to the Rastrigin function
4 f4 f4 is related to the Buche-Rastrigin function
5 f5 f5 is related to the linear slope function
6 f6 f6 is related to the attractive sector function Group (f6-f9) to low or moderate conditioning
7 f7 f7 is related to the step ellipsoidal function
8 f8 f8 is related to the Rosenbrock, original function
9 f9 f9 is related to the Rosenbrock, rotated function
10 f10 f10 is related to the Ellipsoidal function Group (f10-f14) to unimodal with high conditioning
11 f11 f11 is related to the Discus function
12 f12 f12 is related to the Bent Cigar function
13 f13 f13 is related to the sharp Ridge function
14 f14 f14 is related to the different powers function
15 f15 f15 is related to the Rastrigin function Group (f15-f19) to multi-modal with adequate structure
16 f16 f16 is related to the Weierstrass function
17 f17 f17 is related to the Schaffers f7 function
18 f18 f18 is related to the Schaffers f7, moderately function
19 f19 f19 is related to the composite (f2 and f8) function
20 f20 f20 is related to the Schwefel function Group (f20-f24) to multi-modal global structure
21 f21 f21 is related to the Gallagher’s function
22 f22 f22 is related to the Gallagher’s Gaussian 21 function
23 f23 f23 is related to the Katsuura function
24 f24 f24 is related to the Lunacek bi-Rastrigin function

Performance Measurement in terms of Wilcoxon Performance Measurement in terms of ERT Test

Rank-Sum Test on 20 Dimension

The proposed method is verified by the Wilcoxon rank-sum
test on 20 dimensions and presented in Figs. 2, and 3.
These tests have used the comparison of two or more
groups of nonparametric on the benchmark functions(f1-
f24). It is observed that the proposed method finds the best
target f opt þ 108 in terms of the minimum number of
function evaluation and statistical functions.
Wilcoxon rank-sum test is important for checking the
higher ranking (higher to lower) according to the distri-
butions of observations. This observation takes the sum of
the ranks of individuals groups like f1-f5, f6-f9, f10-f14,
f15-f19, f20-f24, and f1-f24. These functions are compar-
ing the two separate groups on nonparametric tests
according to statistical probability (p ¼ 0:05). It is
observed that the proposed technique achieves the best
target(108 ) with the minimum number of iterations as
compare to existing DE algorithms. The obtained results of
ERT and ECDF are mentioned in the next sections.
In the section, obtained performance with respect to the
ERT test on 20 dimensions is discussed and graphically
presented in Fig. 1.
Illustration of Fig. 1: It shows the ERT (Expected run-
ning time) loss ratio for 20 dimension. It displays plotted
log10 of the given function’s ERT loss ratio
(FEvals ¼ FEs). This function demonstrates the function
evaluation of each group taken from the benchmark func-
tion set based on the ERT loss ratio like f1-f5, f6-f9, f10-
f14, f15-f19, f20-f24, and f1-f24. Each group of functions
uses the Box-Whisker plot to demonstrate the error loss of
diversity. The minimum point is shown in the box means
the error ratio is low in the proposed algorithm. Hence, the
proposed algorithm shows significant performance as given
in Fig. 1.

123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (February 2022) 103(1):107–117
(a) (b)
(d) (e)
Fig. 1 ERT of IBDE algorithms in 20-D
Performance Measurement in terms of ECDF Test
on 20 Dimension
This section describes the obtained result with respect to
the ECDF test on 20 dimensions and graphically presented
in Fig. 2.
Illustration of Fig. 2: In the figure, the x-axis denotes the
log10 with funEvl/DIM, and the y-axis represents the
proportional trails from 20 Dimension. It describes the
number of times the proposed algorithm runs to tries to
achieve the best target with respect to the function evolu-
tion. Functions are taken in groups similar to ECDF test
like f1-f5, f6-f9, f10-f14, f15-f19, f20-f24, and f1-f24. It is
observed that the proposed algorithm achieves the target
value with minimum function evaluations in the ECDF test.
In figure, ECDF test represented by the red line on 20
dimension for achieving the difficult target function value
f opt þ 108 [22]. The trails (lines) represent the four values
that achieved the target according to hard trails, i.e., 1, -1,
-4, -8, or represent the color. The proposed algorithm
achieved the target value of each benchmark function (f1-
f24). These functions achieved to trials values, i.e., 1 rep-
resent obtained 23 optimum value, -1 represent obtained
18 optimum value, -4 represent obtained 16 optimum
value, and -8 represent obtained 16 optimum value is
shown in Fig. 2(f).
113
(c)
(f)
Comparative Analysis with other existing DE
Variants
In this subsection, the performance of the proposed opti-
mization technique is analyzed with the existing DE vari-
ants. These techniques are tested on 24 benchmark function
and applied on different dimension, i.e., 20-D, & 40-D for
the rigorous testing. The obtained results concerning the
function evaluations (FEs) and Best Search (target function
108 ) are presented in Table 3. In addition, the proposed
methodology and the existing variants of DE are also tested
on statistics functions which are depicted in Figs. 2, 3, and
4.
Comparative Analysis with Respect to 20 Dimension
Obtained results on Statistics Functions: The proposed
algorithm achieved the optimal value of the statistics
function in the minimum number of iterations as compared
to the other existing DE variants as shown in Fig. 3. From
Fig. 3, it was observed that the IBDE algorithm produces
better target values as compared to the CPI-DE, TSDE,
MPEDE, JADEcr, and ToPDE for all the standard func-
tions (f1-f24). Hence, the proposed technique achieved a
reasonable convergence rate and diversity on 20
dimension.
123
114
(a) (b)
(d) (e)
Fig. 2 ECDF of IBDE algorithm on 20-D
Table 3 Proposed (IBDE) algorithm comparing with other standard DE Algorithms
Sr. No. Benchmark function
1 Group (f1–f5) to separable
2 Group (f6–f9) to low or moderate conditioning
3 Group (f10–f14) to unimodal with high conditioning
4 Group (f15–f19) to multi-modal with adequate structure
5 Group (f20–f24) to multi-modal global structure
6 Group (f1–f24) to all benchmark function
Comparative Analysis with Respect to 40 Dimension
Obtained results on Statistics Functions: The proposed
algorithm achieved the optimal value of the statistics
function in the fewer number of iterations as given in
Fig. 4. This figure clearly demonstrates that the IBDE
algorithm produces better target values as compared to the
TSDE, MPEDE, JADEcr, ToPDE, and CPI-DE for all the
standard functions (f1-f24). Hence, a reasonable conver-
gence rate and diversity were achieved on 40 dimensions.
Effect of Environment Adaption-Based Operator
on the Performance of Algorithm
The crucial operator for this algorithm is the Environment
adaption-based operator. This operator retains the diversity
123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (February 2022) 103(1):107–117
(c)
(f)
Performance algorithms on 20-D Performance algorithms on 40-D
IBDE IBDE
IBDE IBDE
MPEDE CPI-DE
CPI-DE IBDE
IBDE IBDE
IBDE IBDE
even when faced with the local optimum problem. The
requisite threshold diversity is gained by applying the value
of EF from (0.1 to 0.01) and (0.1 to 1). EF is ample for
encapsulating targeted solutions in all functions owing to
the design of the adaption operator. It has been considered
the fact that large size may lead to exploitation and
exploration around many areas. It can be seen an upsurge
in diversity and convergence rate thereby improving the
overall result as shown in Table 3, and Figs. 3, and 4.
Effect of various parameters on the performance of
algorithm: NP (Population size) is an important parameter
for any DE algorithm. The size of the population is
dependent on the introduced dimensions that are smaller to
higher, and these dimensions are used in capturing the
target value for a given function. This is due to the design
of the adaptation operator. If we take large size we may do
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (February 2022) 103(1):107–117 115

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Fig. 3 IBDE algorithm comparing with standard algorithms on 20-D

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Fig. 4 IBDE algorithm comparing with standard algorithms on 40-D

123
116
exploration and exploitation around many local areas. The
number of generations is important for the DE algorithm.
For this proposal, 150 generations may work efficiently
with any population.
Complexity Analysis for the Proposed Algorithm
In the literature analysis, I have observed an increase in the
time and space complexity, when stuck in local optima.
Therefore, the proposed algorithm provides the proper
balance with the consideration of both internal and external
environmental factors, whereas existing approaches
directly involved the solution vector for the next population
generation that loses the diversity. Therefore, the proposed
algorithm’s initial generation has not stagnated most of the
benchmark functions (f1-f24). Hence, the proposed algo-
rithm is achieved a reasonable convergence rate and
diversity on 20 and 40 dimensions.
Conclusion
In this paper, the environment adaption-based operator
maintains the diversity, and also improved the convergence
speed on high dimensions in the global search. The DE
algorithm begins with a high generation of function eval-
uation and applies an environment adaption optimization
method. The method enhanced the diversity in local and
global (search) areas. This proposed method checked all
the twenty-four benchmark functions for real-parameter
and global optimizer. The proposed IBDE version is
compared to five modern DE algorithms, and the results are
verified concerning dimensions of 20 & 40, and as shown
in Table 3. In Figs. 1, 2, 3, and 4, the rank-sum test has
been checked and statistically on 20 & 40 dimensions for
better performance hypothesis testing. This algorithm of
the future scope controls the tuning of control parameters
by the internal and external dynamic selection of the entire
population.
References
1. R. Storn, K. Price, Differential Evolution–A Simple and Efficient
Adaptive Scheme for Global Optimization Over Continuous
Spaces (International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley,
1995)
2. M.G.H. Omran, A. Salman, A.P. Engelbrecht, Self-adaptive dif-
ferential evolution, in Proceedings of the International Confer-
ence on Computational Intelligence and Security, Xi’an, China,
pp. 192-199, 15–19 Dec 2005
3. E. Mezura-Montes, J. Vel azquez-Reyes, C.A. Coello, A com-
parative study of differential evolution variants for global
123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (February 2022) 103(1):107–117
optimization, in Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on
Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (2006), pp. 485–492
4. H.-Y. Fan, J. Lampinen, A trigonometric mutation operation to
differential evolution. J. Global Opt. 27(1), 105–129 (2003)
5. A.K. Qin, V.L. Huang, P.N. Suganthan, Differential evolution
algorithm with strategy adaptation for global numerical opti-
mization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 13(2), 398–417 (2009)
6. M.M. Ali, A. Torn, Population set based global optimization
algorithms: some modifications and numerical studies. Comput.
Oper. Res. 31(10), 1703–1725 (2004)
7. J. Brest, S. Greiner, B. Boskovic, M. Mernik, V. Zumer, Self
adapting control parameters in differential evolution: a compar-
ative study on numerical benchmark problems. IEEE Trans. Evol.
Comput. 10, 646–657 (2006)
8. V.L. Huang, S.Z. Zhao, R. Mallipeddi, P.N. Suganthan, Multi-
objective optimization using self-adaptive differential evolution
algorithm, in Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Evolution-
ary Computation,Trondheim, Norway, pp. 190-194, 18–21 May
2009
9. R. Mallipeddi, P.N. Suganthan, Empirical study on the effect of
population size on differential evolution algorithm, in Proceed-
ings of the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Hong
Kong, pp. 3663-3670, 1–6 June 2008
10. S. Das, A. Konar, U.K. Chakraborty, wo improved differential
evolution schemes for faster global search, in Proceedings of the
Genetic Evolution Computing Conference, Washington DC, USA
(2005), pp. 991-998
11. D.K. Tasoulis, N.G. Pavlidis, V.P. Plagianakos, M.N. Vrahatis,
Parallel differential evolution, in Proceedings of the 2004 Con-
gress on Evolutionary Computation (2004), pp. 2023–2029
12. N. Noman, H. Iba, Accelerating differential evolution using an
adaptive local search. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 12(1), 107–125
(2008)
13. Radha Thangaraj, Millie Pant, Ajith Abraham, New mutation
schemes for differential evolution algorithm and their application
to the optimization of directional over-current relay settings.
Appl. Math. Comput. 216(2), 532–544 (2010)
14. I. Fajfar, J. Puhan, S. Tomazic, A. Burmen, On Selection in
Differential Evolution, English Edition. (Elektrotehniki Vestnik,
2011), pp. 275–280
15. Y. Wang, Z. Cai, Q. Zhang, Differential evolution with composite
trial vector generation strategies and control parameters. IEEE
Trans. Evol. Comput. 15, 55–66 (2011)
16. S.M. Islam, S. Das, S. Ghosh, S. Roy, P.N. Suganthan, An
adaptive differential evolution algorithm with novel mutation and
crossover strategies for global numerical optimization, IEEE
Trans. Syst. MAN Cyber. Part B Cyber. 42(2), 482–500 (2012)
17. Ruhul A. Sarker, Saber M. Elsayed, Tapabrata Ray, Differential
evolution with dynamic parameters selection for optimization
problems. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 18(5), 689–707 (2014)
18. W. Gong, Z. Cai, Y. Wang, Repairing the Crossover Rate in
Adaptive Differential Evolution Applied soft commuting, (Else-
vier, Feb 2014), pp. 149–168
19. Xinyu Zhou, Wu. Zhijian, Hui Wang, Shahryar Rahnamayan,
Enhancing differential evolution with role assignment scheme.
Soft Comput. 18, 2209–2225 (2014)
20. Wenchao Yi, Liang Gao, Xinyu Li, Yinzhi Zhou, A new differ-
ential evolution algorithm with a hybrid mutation operator and
self-adapting control parameters for global optimization prob-
lems. ApplIntell 42, 642–660 (2015)
21. Qinqin Fan, Xuefeng Yan, Self-adaptive differential evolution
algorithm with discrete mutation control parameters. Exp. Syst.
Appl. 42, 1551–1572 (2015)
22. http://coco.gforge.inria.fr/
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (February 2022) 103(1):107–117
23. Rainer Storn, Kenneth Price, Differential evolution—a simple
and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous
spaces. J. Global Opt. 11(4), 341–359 (1997)
24. Jingqiao Zhang, Arthur C. Sanderson, JADE: adaptive differen-
tial evolution with optional external archive. IEEE Trans. Evol.
Comput. 13(5), 945–958 (2009)
25. N. Hansen et al., Real-parameter black-box optimization bench-
marking 2009: noiseless functions definitions (2009)
26. S. Finck, N. Hansen, R. Ros, A. Auger, Real-parameter black-box
optimization benchmarking 2009: presentation of the noiseless
functions, in Technical Report 2009/20, Research Center PPE,
2009. Updated February, (2010)
27. S. Finck, N. Hansen, R. Ros, A. Auger, Real-parameter black-box
optimization benchmarking2010: presentation of the noiseless
functions. http://coco.lri.fr/downloads/download15.02/bbobdoc
functions.pdf
28. N. Hansen, A. Auger, S. Finck, R. Ros, Real-parameter black-box
optimization benchmarking 2010: Experimental Setup, in Tech-
nical Report, RR-7215, INRIA (2010)
29. S. Das, P.N. Suganthan, Differential evolution: a survey of the
state-of-the-art. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 15(1), 4–31 (2011)
30. P. Posik, V. Klems, JADE, an adaptive differential evolution
algorithm, benchmarked on the BBOB noiseless testbed.
GECCO’12, Philadelphia, PA, USA, (2012)
31. L. Pal, Benchmarking a Hybrid Multi Level Single Linkage
Algorithm on the BBOB Noiseless Testbed, GECCO’13, Ams-
terdam, Netherlands, (2013)
32. G.H. Wu, R. Mallipeddi, P.N. Suganthan, R. Wang, H.K. Chen,
Differential evolution with multi-population based ensemble of
mutation strategies. Inf. Sci. 329, 329–345 (2016).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2015.09.009
33. Y. Wang, Z.Z. Liu, J. Li, H.X. Li, G.G. Yen, Utilizing cumulative
population distribution information in differential evolution.
Appl. Soft Comput. 48, 329–346 (2016)
34. Y. Wang, B. Xu, G. Sun, S. Yang, A two-phase differential
evolution for uniform designs in constrained experimental
domains. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., (in press).
https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2017.2669098
117
35. Z. Z. Liu, Y. W. S. Yang, Z. Cai, Differential evolution with a
two-stage optimization mechanism for numerical optimization, in
2016 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC)
(Vancouver, BC, 2016), pp. 3170–3177
36. Shailendra Pratap Singh, Anoj Kumar, Homeostasis mutation
based differential evolution algorithm. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst.
32(5), 3525–3537 (2017)
37. Hu. Zhongbo, Su. Qinghua, Xianshan Yang, Zenggang Xiong,
Not guaranteeing convergence of differential evolution on a class
of multimodal functions. Appl. Soft Comput. 41, 479–487 (2016)
38. Y. Wang, Z. Z. Liu, J. Li, H. X. Li, J. Wang, On the selection of
solutions for mutation in differential evolution. Front. Comput.
Sci. 12, 297–315. (2016)
39. Yong Wang, Zhi-Zhong. Liu, Jianbin Li, Han-Xiong. Li, Gery G.
Yen, Utilizing cumulative population distribution information in
differential evolution. Appl. Soft Comput. 48, 329–346 (2016)
40. Yong Wang, Han-Xiong. LI, Tingwen Huang, Long Li, Differ-
ential evolution based on covariance matrix learning and bimodal
distribution parameter setting. Appl. Soft Comput. 18, 232–247
(2014)
41. S.P. Singh, A. Kumar, Multiobjective differential evolution using
homeostasis based mutation for application in software cost
estimation. Appl. Intell. 48(3), 628–650 (2018)
42. S.P. Singh, A. Kumar, Software cost estimation using home-
ostasis mutation based differential evolution, in 2017 11th
International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Control
(ISCO), (2017), pp. 173–181
43. S.P. Singh, V.P. Singh, A.K. Mehta, Differential evolution using
homeostasis adaption based mutation operator and its application
for software cost estimation, J. King Saud Univ. Comput. Inf.
Sci., (2018)
44. S. P. Singh, Cost estimation model using enhance based differ-
ential evolution algorithm, Iran J. Comput. Sci. (Springer),
(2019), pp. 1–12
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
123