Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-023-08481-5 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().
,- volV)

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

A systematic review of the emerging metaheuristic algorithms

on solving complex optimization problems
Oguz Emrah Turgut1 • Mert Sinan Turgut2 • Erhan Kırtepe3

Received: 2 November 2022 / Accepted: 8 March 2023 / Published online: 26 March 2023
 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023

Abstract
The scientific field of optimization has witnessed an increasing trend in the development of metaheuristic algorithms within
the current decade. The vast majority of the proposed algorithms have been proclaimed as superior and highly efficient
compared to their contemporary counterparts by their own developers, which should be verified on a set of benchmark
cases if it is to give conducive insights into their true capabilities. This study completes a comprehensive investigation of
the general optimization capabilities of the recently developed nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithms, which have not
been thoroughly discussed in past literature studies due to their new emergence. To overcome this deficiency in the existing
literature, optimization benchmark problems with different functional characteristics will be solved by some of the widely
used recent optimizers. Unconstrained standard test functions comprised of thirty-four unimodal scalable optimization
problems with varying dimensionalities have been solved by these competitive algorithms, and respective estimated
solutions have been evaluated relying on the performance metrics defined by the statistical analysis of the predictive
results. Convergence curves of the algorithms have been construed to observe the evolution trends of objective function
values. To further delve into comprehensive analysis on unconstrained test cases, CEC 2013 problems have been con-
sidered for comparison tools since their resemblances of the following features of real-world complex algorithms. The
optimization capabilities of eleven metaheuristics algorithms have been comparatively analyzed on twenty-eight multi-
dimensional problems. Finally, fourteen complex engineering problems have been optimized by the algorithms to scru-
tinize their effectiveness on handling the imposed design constraints.

Keywords Algorithm comparison  Algorithm scalability  Metaheuristic algorithms  Real-world design problems

1 Introduction improvements in the production of high-performance

Recent advances in micro-chip technology allow for cal-
culating expensive computations within a limited runtime,
which minimizes the effort for developing efficient algo-
rithms devoted to yield feasible outcomes without wasting
redundant computational resources. Rapid yet controlled
& Oguz Emrah Turgut
oguzemrah.turgut@bakircay.edu.tr
1
Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
and Architecture, Izmir Bakircay University,
Menemen, İzmir, Turkey
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, Ege University, Bornova, İzmir, Turkey
3
Department of Motor Vehicles and Transportation
Technologies, Şırnak University, Şırnak, Turkey
computer processors enable researchers to focus on
developing more versatile, multi-functional, and prolific
algorithmic schemes, which paves the way for the propo-
sition of various types of metaheuristic optimization algo-
rithms for solving a variety of optimization problems.
Optimization problems in their inherent nature are very
complex as they involve more than one local solution apart
from the global optimum. They can be categorized into
distinctive branches depending on the characteristics of the
problem to be solved, whether it is constrained or uncon-
strained, discrete or continuous, and single-objective or
multi-objective. Metaheuristic algorithms have become
popular among the research community as they do not
benefit from the derivative information of the search space
to reach the global optimum and do not require initial guess
solutions, thanks to the randomness generated by the

123
14276
responsible search agents, which enables to eliminate the
local pitfalls over the solution domain [1]. They can be
perceived as a high-level optimization framework appli-
cable to a wide range of problem domains, guided by a set
of defined search strategies to develop an efficient heuristic
algorithm. They can successfully cope with the challenges
of nonlinear or non-convex problems with expending a
relatively low computational budget compared to the tra-
ditional optimizers. This prolific feature of metaheuristic
optimizers makes them one step ahead of the traditional
optimizers such as Newton-based algorithms and gradient
descent optimizers. Despite their ease in implementation,
Conventional optimization methods are easily be trapped in
the local solutions and desperately stagnates at these
obstructive points during the course of iterations, leading to
inferior solution outcomes. Metaheuristic algorithms come
to the rescue in these unprosperous situations where con-
ventional methods collapse and employ alternative options
to overcome the obstacles of the optimization problem.
Metaheuristics can be broadly classified under four
different main branches such as evolutionary algorithms,
physical-based algorithms, swarm-based algorithms, and
human-based algorithms. Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs)
simulate the tendencies of living organisms relying on
foundational concepts of Darwinian-like natural selection
[2] to develop intelligent optimization techniques. Genetic
Algorithms [3] are the most famous member of EAs, imi-
tating the different aspects of biological evolution based on
the principles of natural selection. Differential Evolution
[4] is another reputed optimizer iteratively adjusting the set
of candidate solutions simulating the basic principles of
Darwinian evolution to achieve the optimal answer of the
problem. Evolutionary Strategies (ES) [5], Genetic Pro-
gramming (GP) [6], and Biogeography-Based Optimization
(BBO) [7] also belong to the group of well-known EAs.
Physical-based algorithms are conceptualized on the fun-
damental principles of Newton’s law of physics. Gravita-
tional Search Algorithm (GSA) proposed by Rashedi et al.
[8] is one of the pioneers of the physics-based algorithm,
imitating the gravitational interactions between masses.
Big Bang–Big Crunch (BB–BC) [9] algorithm is inspired
from the evolution stages of the universe. In the incipient
phase, Big Bang occurs in which trial solutions are gen-
erated to be used for manipulation in the later stage. Big
Crunch phase modifies the initial solutions iteratively to
retain the global best answer of the problem. Water Cycle
Algorithm (WCA) [10] draws its inspiration from the water
cycle process in the nature, formation of the rivers and
streams, and simulates how they flow toward to the sea in
the real world. Charged System Search (CSS) [11] is
inspired by the governing mechanisms of Coulomb law,
where each search agent is an interactive charged particle
influencing each other based on their respective fitness
123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
values and separation distances. Swarm Intelligence (SI)
algorithms are nature-inspired solution strategies takes
their main foundations upon the collective behaviors in the
self-organized and decentralized artificial systems. Devel-
opment of the Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) [12]
algorithm is one of the first pioneering attempts to the
gradual evolution of the SI-based algorithms. PSO simu-
lates the cooperative behavior of the swarming individuals
such as birds, insects, herds, etc. Each particle in the swarm
takes different roles relying on their search patterns with a
view to obtain available food sources and benefits from
their previous search experiences and cumulative domain
knowledge to adjust the most conducive search activity to
reach the global optimum solution. Ant Colony Opti-
mization (ACO) [13] mimics the intrinsic foraging
behaviors of the intelligent ants, which is based on the
following the intensity of the pheromones left by foraging
ants which are on their ways to probe around the available
food resources. Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) [14] algo-
rithm is inspired from the intelligent foraging behaviors
artificial bees, which are, in essence, search agents to be
iteratively optimized during the course of consecutive
function evaluations. Salp Swarm Optimization (SSA) [15]
algorithm is a swarm intelligence metaphor-based opti-
mizer taking its main inspiration to the swarming procliv-
ities of the salp individuals while they are navigating across
the ocean during foraging activities. Human-based meta-
heuristic algorithms are based on the mathematical models
and intelligently devised procedures mimicking the char-
acteristics of human activities. Teaching–Learning-Based
Optimization (TLBO) [16] is one of the most famous
family of the human-based optimizer, metaphorically
simulating the mutualist teaching and learning process
taking place in a classroom. Poor and Rich Optimization
(PRO) [17] algorithm simulates the tedious efforts between
two distinct groups comprised of poor and rich individuals
to improve their current wealth situations while sharing the
useful domain knowledge within the whole population.
Harmony Search Optimization Algorithm (HS) [18] is one
of the prominent members belonging to this group, simu-
lating the exhaustive process of a musician trying to find
the perfect tune during harmony improvisation. Imperialist
Competitive Algorithm (ICA) [19] is a socio-political
human-inspired metaheuristic algorithm conceptualized on
the imperialist competition among the evolving countries,
which are essentially search agents of this multi-agent
optimization algorithm.
Despite the undisputable success of the literature
metaheuristic algorithms, emerging novel algorithms come
into existence to fill the gap for solving the complex
optimization problems where available existing optimizers
collapse and are not able to yield feasible solutions. In
addition, a notable No Free Lunch theorem [20] explaining
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
why there is an unceasing need for developing brand-new
algorithms despite the abundancy of available optimizers
with various types in the literature states that there is no
single optimization algorithm capable to solve all kinds of
optimization problems. It requires an exhaustive analysis
employing various strategies to decide which algorithm
performs well for a given optimization problem. Statistical
analysis of the compiled set of objective function values
has been consistently utilized in previous literature studies
in order to decide the suitability of the associated algorithm
for the given problem. Some algorithms get better results
for specific optimization problems than the other methods.
These are the main reasons accounting for the enormous
exponential growth in the development of metaheuristic
optimizers within the recent two decades. Competitive
research studies related with the development of effective
metaheuristic algorithms during the era between 2010 and
2020 are mostly inspired by either the swarming behavior
of a flocking particle in its natural habitat or by simulating
the evolutionary mechanisms of living organisms. In many
optimization cases, these new emerging algorithms are able
to provide the best possible answer of the problems surpass
the former existing optimizers with respect to considered
comparative measures.
As the existing literature suggests, metaheuristic algo-
rithms have been developed, modified, or hybridized with
other intelligent algorithms for a period of time more than
two decades. These type of algorithms find their place in
many fields of engineering applications ranging from
Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC) design
[21] to well placement optimization [22]. They are efficient
problem-solving strategies even when the objective func-
tion is strictly constrained or characteristically having
mixed-integer design variables. Continuous search agents
are rounded-off to its nearest integer values for the mixed-
integer optimization problems as the traditional penalty
approach is employed to penalize the infeasible solutions
obtained during the iterations with a view to convert the
constraint optimization problem to the unconstrained one.
Decision parameters to be optimized are bounded to their
allowable predefined limits, upper and lower limits, and
prior to commencing the optimization process. These fea-
tures are common to nearly all metaheuristic algorithms
and should be carefully practiced to acquire a feasible
solution for the problem.
As extensive literature survey indicates, metaheuristics
have become a commonplace approach for solving differ-
ent domains of optimization problems. However, a for-
midable question is often confusing the mind as to their
effectivity and convergence capabilities for general class of
problems. Although there are numerous emerging meta-
heuristic algorithms developed in the existing literature,
only a few researchers discuss and address reasonable
14277
answers for this raised issue as it is hard to deal with the
complexities of the real-world problems since the global
optimum is intractable in most of the cases. Problem-in-
dependent feature of metaheuristic algorithms still remains
questionable to the community, and arduous efforts have
been paid by researchers to unravel the true nature of these
algorithms since their first emergence. Recent studies try to
shed light on this intriguing research subject yet most of
them consider a particular problem domain rather than
looking from a broader perspective for investigating the
comparative performances of the available metaheuristic
algorithms. Kumar et al. [23] compared the performances
of six metaheuristic optimizers including Iterated Local
Search (ILS), Simulated Annealing (SA), Genetic Algo-
rithm (GA), Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), Tabu
Search (TS) and Crow Search Algorithm (CSA) in quad-
ratic assignment problems and concluded that TS has the
lowest deviation and average runtime between them and
declares its superiority among the contestant optimizers.
Lara-Montano et al. [24] comparatively investigated the
optimization performances of seven metaheuristic methods
on shell-and-tube heat exchanger design optimization
problem with having mixed-integer decision parameters. It
is observed that Differential Evolution and Grey Wolf
Optimization (GWO) algorithms provide the most
stable and accurate prediction results. Abdor-Sierra et al.
[25] perform a comprehensive evaluation between ten
different metaheuristic algorithms on solving inverse
kinematics problem of a robot manipulator. Statistical
analysis of the algorithm runs reveal that different PSO
variants along with DE algorithm provide the most accu-
rate estimation values and are highly recommended for
solving inverse kinematic of mobile robots. Sonmez [26]
considered eight literature optimizers for their performance
comparison on optimal design of space trusses and con-
cluded that when dimensionality of the design problem is
increased to higher extents, computationally effective
solutions are obtained from Jaya, GWO, and ABC algo-
rithm. Ahmet et al. [27] hybridized three emergent physics-
inspired metaheuristic algorithms with a multi-layer per-
ceptron to approximate the amount of streamflow in the
rivers for the near future where the compiled streamflow
data set is collected from the 130 years of the periodic
water level changes in High Aswan Dam. Meng et al. [28]
comprehensively investigated the optimization capabilities
of ten different metaheuristic algorithms on various cases
of reliability-based design problems. Assessment of the
algorithms are carried out on different performance mea-
sures, including global convergence, solution accuracy and
robustness, and runtime analysis. Predictive results
obtained from the benchmark reliability problems indicate
that WCA shows superior adaptability to different bench-
mark cases and recommended for solving reliability-based
123
14278
optimization problems. Katebi et al. [29] independently
integrated six intelligent metaheuristic optimizers into the
active mechanism of a Wavelet-based Linear Quadratic
Regulator to conquer the local optimality problem as well
as to enhance general system efficiency. ICA achieves to
obtain the most optimal responses for the optimal control
problem. Naranjo et al. [30] applied three different well-
reputed metaheuristic optimizers to the multi-objective
optimization of a dimensional synthesis of a spherical
parallel manipulator. Simulation results obtained after
repetitive runs demonstrate that Decomposition-based
Evolutionary Algorithm obtains estimation results with the
lowest deviates and generates uniform and smooth solution
distribution along the Pareto curve. Advanced design
optimization of a hydrogen-based microgrid system has
been carried out by employing six different metaheuristic
algorithms, and their comparative performances are
assessed relying on their corresponding fitness function
values accounting for the total cost of integrated sustain-
able energy system. It is seen that Moth Flame Optimiza-
tion algorithm results in a significant reduction of the
overall cost expenditure and outperforms the remaining
compared optimizers with respect to solution efficiency
[31]. Gupta et al. [32] investigated the search behavior of
the metaheuristic algorithms on real-world mechanical
engineering problems with mixed-integer decisions vari-
ables binding constraints and conflicting highly nonlinear
problem objectives. Nine metaheuristic optimizers have
been considered for analyzing their comparative perfor-
mances on solving these mechanical engineering problems
in terms of convergence rates and solution qualities.
Ezugwu et al. [33] put forward a systematic analysis
approach for evaluating the solution consistencies and
runtime complexities of twelve different metaheuristic
optimizers on continuous unconstrained optimization
problems. GA, DE, and PSO algorithms perform well
under a variety of optimization test problems, slightly
surpassing Symbiotic Organism Search (SOS) and Cuckoo
Search (CS) algorithms concerning the best results.
One can clearly deduce from the extensive survey that
previous research studies focus on a particular subject,
providing limited insight on the overall capabilities of the
implemented metaheuristic algorithms for evaluating their
comparative prediction performances. In the domain of
evolutionary computation and metaheuristic algorithms,
researchers tend to apply their best optimizers between
their contemporary alternatives to solve the optimization
problem at hand. Selecting the best optimization method
out of the compared contestant optimizers for a given set of
benchmark problems is decided by the conclusive remarks
of the inventor of the proposed algorithm, which may be
deceptive and lead to unreasonable inferences regarding to
the veracity of its search performance. Comprehensive
123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
evaluations and assessments should be carried out to
comprehend as to which algorithm performs better or
which algorithm is most suitable to the type of the problem
being solved. Furthermore, it is an undisputable necessity
to keep up with the recent impact in the development and
implementation of new metaheuristic algorithms along
with their successful applications of various real-world
problems. In addition, there should be a continuous effort
to seek the improvement in existing optimizers or to
develop state-of-the-art metaheuristic algorithms, relying
on the implications of No Free Lunch theorem, postulating
the general belief that there is no available metaheuristic
algorithm capable to solve all optimization problems, as
previously mentioned in the former paragraphs. To widen
the general perspective on scrutinizing the estimation
accuracies of the new emerging metaheuristic algorithms,
this study proposes a more insightful and reasonable per-
formance benchmark strategy. Overall search effectivities
of the recently developed eleven metaheuristic optimizers
of Runge–Kutta Optimization (RUNGE) [34], Gradient-
based Optimizer [35], Poor and Rich Optimization (PRO)
[17], Reptile Search algorithm (REPTILE) [36], Snake
Optimizer (SNAKE) [37], Equilibrium Optimizer (EQUIL)
[38], Manta Ray Optimization Algorithm (MANTA) [39],
African Vultures Optimization Algorithm (AFRICAN)
[40], Aquila Optimization Algorithm (AQUILA) [41],
Harris Hawks Optimization (HARRIS) [42], and Barnacles
Mating Optimizer (BARNA) [43] will be benchmarked
against multidimensional optimization problems with var-
ious types in this research study. Despite their new emer-
gence and insufficient recognition from the metaheuristic
community, there are many existing literature applications
regarding their successful employment on real-world
design problems. RUNG algorithm was previously applied
to the optimal design of a photovoltaic system to mitigate
partial shading conditions [44]. Optimal parameter esti-
mation of the PEM fuel cell model was conducted by the
newly emerged GRAD algorithm, and it is seen that elec-
trical model parameter estimation results for different PEM
fuel cell devices obtained from GRAD optimizer is much
better and accurate those retained by the compared litera-
ture optimizers [45]. A modified version of PRO algorithm
is employed for grouping similar documents by using text
classification and outperforms the contestant algorithm of
Particle Swarm Optimization, Whale Optimization, Grey
Wolf Optimization, and Dragonfly algorithms with respect
to the clustering accuracy of the text documents [46]. Levy
Flight-assisted Reptile Search algorithm (REPTILE) is
developed for tuning proportional-integral-derivative
model parameters of a vehicle cruise control [47]. Hu et al.
[48] proposed multi-strategy boosted Snake Inspired
Optimizer (SNAKE) developed for multidimensional
engineering design problems. They benchmarked the
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
optimization capability of the proposed method against
some of the well-known optimizers, and clear dominance
of this developed optimizer is observed. Optimal energy
load dispatch in a multi-chiller system was carried out by
Equilibrium Optimizer and bets results were compared by
the previous efforts made by Genetic Algorithm and Sim-
ulated Annealing optimization method [49]. Hu et al. [50]
enhanced the general optimization capability of Manta Ray
Foraging Optimization (MANTA) by integrating search
equations of Wavelet mutation and quadratic interpolation
strategy and applied this ameliorated version of the algo-
rithm to successful shape optimization of a complex
composite cubic generalized ball. Chen et al. [51] utilized
African Vulture Optimization Algorithm (AFRICAN) for
optimal modeling of combined power system operated in a
watersport complex. Main optimization objective is to
minimize the total energy losses as much as possible by
optimizing the considered design parameters of a number
of gas engines, boiler heating capacity, and cooling
capacity of the electric and absorption chillers. Aquila
Optimization Algorithm (AQUILA) is put into practice to
effectively design a feedforward proportional-integral
controller to achieve the optimum air–fuel ratio in a spark
ignition system, which plays an important role in regulating
the fuel consumption as well as protecting the environment
from harmful emissions to some degree [52]. An improved
Harris Hawks (HARRIS) optimization algorithm enhanced
with the chaotic Tent map and integrated with an extreme
learning machine was employed for constructing a generic
holistic model to predict the intensity level of rock busts.
The developed model reaches a high degree of prediction
accuracy of 94.12%, providing a quick convergence rate to
its optimum solution [53]. Barnacles Mating Optimizer
(BARNA) combined with a support vector machine is
proposed for obtaining precise state of charge estimation,
which is an important concern for a reliable battery man-
agement system [54].
The majority of the members of the metaheuristic
optimization community do not have in-depth knowledge
on the general optimization performance of the new
emerging nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithms.
Underlying novelty brought out by this review paper is to
scrutinize the solution effectivity of the recent nature-in-
spired algorithms on multidimensional constrained and
unconstrained optimization problems. One of the
demanding goal in this work is to conduct in-depth analysis
of general behaviors and proclivities of the above-men-
tioned newly emerged metaheuristic approaches on test
functions with different functional characteristics. All
algorithms will be analyzed on the same benchmark
14279
functions, and their respective pros and cons are compar-
atively evaluated by the similar performance measures.
Following contributions are provided to the current litera-
ture by this study, which can be concisely listed as:
1. Comprehensive analyses are made on eleven algo-
rithms through the statistical performance of thirty-four
unconstrained optimization functions comprised of
unimodal and multimodal test functions. Convergence
graphs for the compared algorithms are plotted for each
unconstrained test problem to observe which algorithm
converges faster to its optimum, and the best optimizer
between them is decided by its success on obtaining the
most accurate solutions within the lowest computation
time.
2. CEC-2013 (Congress on Evolutionary Computation-
2013) test suite involving twenty-eight benchmark
functions with different modalities is solved by the
compared eleven algorithms, and the most successful
algorithm among the competitive methods is deter-
mined by the corresponding statistical analysis regard-
ing to the best, worst, mean, and standard deviation
results.
3. Fourteen real-world constrained complex engineering
design problems are optimized through these twelve
metaheuristics, and their comparative performances are
evaluated based on the statistical analysis of the fitness
function values.
Remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Sec-
tion 2 gives brief description of the compared meta-
heuristic algorithms and lists some of the high-impact past
studies related with the performance comparison of meta-
heuristic algorithms. Section 3 gives mention on the con-
tributing motivations behind the comparison between the
existing newly emerged metaheuristics. Section 4 provides
the statistical comparison results for the standard uncon-
strained benchmark problems and compares the optimiza-
tion accuracies of the compared algorithms on the test
functions belonging to the CEC 2013 test suite. Section 5
analyses the behavior of the contested algorithms on
engineering design problems and decides which algorithm
gives the less erroneous predictions satisfying the chal-
lenging problem constraints. Section 6 provides a com-
prehensive discussion on the search tendencies of the
compared algorithms and gives an explicit investigation on
their algorithmic structure as to why they perform well in
some types of test problems and collapse for the other
types. Section 7 concludes this comprehensive research
study with remarkable comments and insightful future
directions.
123
14280
2 Metaheuristic algorithms considered
for comparative performance evaluations
This section is related with giving a brief overview of the
previous literature studies about the performance compar-
ison of metaheuristic optimizers and introducing each
metaheuristic algorithm for benchmarking their prediction
performance on various test functions with different
domains. Due to the limited search space, a brief descrip-
tion of the metaheuristic algorithms is provided in this
section. Interested could find more information about the
related algorithm in its original paper.
2.1 Previous works
Recent developments in chip technologies entail a rapid
escalation in generating efficient stochastic metaheuristic
algorithms whose overall optimization success majorly
depends on approaching the global optimum solution
within a reasonable computational time. Algorithms draw
their inspiration from various sources, such as the intrinsic
foraging skills of the honey bees [55] or the efforts of a
skillful musician seeking to improvisation for perfect har-
mony [18]. Some of the existing algorithms have shown
great potential to solve a diverse range of optimization
instances covering from combinatorial problems to con-
straint engineering design cases. Moreover, some stochas-
tic algorithms can be utilized along with the metaheuristic
optimizers to solve an optimization problem with faster
convergence to the optimal solution [56–58]. It is note-
worthy to mention that the majority of the proposed
metaheuristic optimizers up to now achieved notable suc-
cess on solving complex real-world problems from differ-
ent domains of engineering fields [59–61].
Recent two decades have witnessed the development of
a considerable amount of metaheuristic algorithms with a
wide range of inspiration sources; however, their compar-
ative prediction performances between each other have not
been extensively investigated so far. Keeping in mind that
it is extremely difficult to systematically and exhaustively
evaluate the favorable merits of the emerging metaheuris-
tics within a limited number of optimization benchmark
cases, most of the previous literature studies associated
with the optimization performance assessment of the con-
temporary metaheuristic algorithms focus on a particular
engineering design problem or cover a restricted number of
optimization benchmark cases, none of which are suffi-
ciently conducive to provide general insights on the true
optimization capabilities on the benchmarked algorithms.
There are several attempts in the existing literature to
present the comparative performances of algorithms on
various fields of test instances. Below paragraphs present
123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
an explicit discussion of the mentioned literature works and
investigate which test instances they utilized for the per-
formance comparison of the considered metaheuristic
algorithms.
One of the early few attempts to evaluate the compar-
ative prediction performances of the stochastic meta-
heuristic algorithms was carried out by Ali et al. [62], in
which a reasonable procedure is proposed for testing the
estimation accuracies of the algorithms through an appro-
priate selection of the test suite of benchmark problems and
put forward a straightforward methodology to present the
optimization results. They compiled a diverse set of con-
tinuous test problems from different domains and investi-
gated the macroscopic search behaviors of the five
stochastic optimizers, including improving hit-and-run,
hide-and-seek, controlled random search, real coded
genetic algorithm, and differential evolution algorithms.
An informative performance plot are drawn to observe
gradual improvements in the objective function values with
an increasing number of iterations. Numerical experiments
made on the selected test functions are hinged on consid-
ering three different maximum numbers of iterations
defined for the termination criterion (100D2, 10D2, and
10D where D is the dimensionality of the problem).
Respective results reveal that careful selection of the
maximum number of iterations which decides the elapsed
algorithm runtime has a significant impact on the opti-
mization behavior of the running algorithms.
Civicioglu and Besdok [63] analyzed the algorithmic
concepts of Cuckoo search, Particle Swarm Optimization,
Differential Evolution, and Artificial Bee Colony optimizer
employing different performance measures. Optimization
success of these four well-established optimizers has been
assessed on fifty different continuous optimization bench-
mark functions with varying problem dimensionalities, and
it is revealed that the overall solution success of is Cuckoo
search algorithm is very close to that of Differential Evo-
lution algorithm, those two of which provide much robust
and accurate prediction outcomes compared to those
obtained for Particle Swarm Optimizer and Artificial Bee
colony algorithms. Total number of function evaluations
required for achieving the optimum answer of the problem
along with the runtime complexities of the algorithms have
also been comprehensively evaluated and found out that
Differential Evolution requires fewer function evaluations
without burdening a significant amount of computational
load in most of the test cases.
Ma et al. [64] conducted a comprehensive comparative
study between some of the prevalent evolutionary
stochastic optimizers of Genetic Algorithm (GA), Bio-
geography-based Optimization (BBO), Differential Evo-
lution (DE), Evolutionary Strategy (ES), and Particle
Swarm Optimization (PSO). Firstly, they made a
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
conceptual discussion on the equivalences of these men-
tioned algorithms and found out that the basic versions of
these methods have similar optimization performances
compared to GA with global uniform recombination under
specific test conditions. They also discussed the differences
based on their biological inspirations and conclude that the
enhanced solution diversity of EAs is the direct result of
these distinctions. Furthermore, the optimization capabili-
ties of these above-mentioned metaheuristic optimizers are
extensively assessed on a set of real-world optimization
problems with different functional characteristics. Empiri-
cal results obtained from exhaustive numerical experiments
reveal that BBO algorithm gives the best predictive results
among the compared standard optimizers. When it comes
to examining the improved versions of the algorithms, it is
observed that DE and ES provide the best prediction
accuracy compared to that of the other remaining algo-
rithms. Ma et al. [65] extended their previous research
study by introducing a conceptual comparison between
algorithmic equivalences of some swarm intelligence (SI)
optimizers, including Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO),
Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm (SFLA), Group Search
Algorithm (GSO), Firefly Algorithm (FA), Artificial Bee
Colony (ABC) Algorithm, and Gravitational Search
Algorithm. After exhaustive elaborations on the considered
test instances that cover the unconstrained test functions
employed in CEC 2013 competitions and combinatorial
knapsack problems, it is seen that the advanced version of
ABC algorithm numerically outperforms the remaining
algorithms in terms of solution accuracy and robustness for
CEC 2013 benchmark problems and improved versions of
SFLA and GSA algorithms yield the best prediction out-
comes on combinatorial knapsack problems.
Ezugwu et al. [33] comparatively examined the predic-
tion capabilities and convergence characteristics of twelve
metaheuristic optimizers, including the standard Genetic
Algorithm (GA), Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO),
Firefly Algorithm (FA), Ant Colony Optimization (ACO),
Symbiotic Organism Search (SOS), Cuckoo Search (CS),
Artificial Bee Colony (ABC), Bat Algorithm (BA), Dif-
ferential Evolution (DE), Flower Pollination Algorithm
(FPA), Invasive Weed Optimization (IWO), and Bee
Algorithm (BeeA). Main purpose of their accomplished
study is to carry out an in-depth analysis that would pro-
vide deep insight on the search characteristics of each
representative metaheuristic optimization algorithm. All
algorithms are evaluated on 36 different standard multidi-
mensional test functions, and comprehensive statistical
analysis has been performed that entails an unbiased and
objective assessment of the reflected effectiveness of the
algorithms. Furthermore, the minimum required function
evaluations to acquire the optimum solution of the problem
and runtime complexities of the algorithms have also been
14281
comparatively investigated. They concluded their research
with remarkable decisive comments, including some
favorable outcomes of the numerical experiments such that
the number of function evaluations defined as the termi-
nation criterion has a great influence on the accuracy of the
predicted solutions yet increases the computational run-
time, which is not a desired situation for an end-user.
According to the respective estimation results of the opti-
mization problems with varying domains, it is seen that
PSO, DE, and GA show brilliant performances, each
obtaining the maximum value of 11% success ratio.
This research study is mainly concerned with novel
metaheuristic algorithms, particularly for optimizers
developed after 2019. Main reason behind the considera-
tion of these algorithms is general confusion, mostly
resulting from a surplus of metaheuristic optimizers
developed in such a small span of time, as to which
algorithms perform well for optimization problems with
varying degrees of dimensionalities, functional character-
istics, and types. To be clear, there is now an ongoing
ambiguity in the metaheuristic community over the general
optimization capabilities of the recent metaheuristic opti-
mizer. Majority of the researchers do not have a conclusive
opinion regarding the optimization search efficiency of the
related algorithm, and comparative analysis should be
made on various types of optimization benchmark func-
tions with various functional features if it is to get clear
insight on its overall effectivity. In addition, comparative
performance analysis between the newly emerging algo-
rithms is still in question as there has not been a published
literature study concerning this issue. Of course, there are
available options in the selection of different algorithms
which were developed between the years of 2019 and 2022.
However, we consider two important aspects on their
optional selection. First qualification requires their frequent
application to different kinds of design problems, while the
second is their general optimization performance compared
to remaining algorithms, considering two deterministic
aspects of average computational burden and solution
accuracy obtained after a defined number of algorithm
runs. Between twenty-five recently developed metaheuris-
tic algorithms, these eleven metaheuristic optimizers yield
the most fruitful outcomes with respect to these above-
defined two complementary performance measures.
Therefore, we consider these eleven algorithms to fill this
gap in the existing literature because of their widespread
application ranges of scientific fields compared to the
remaining contestant algorithms.
Most of the literature studies concerning the compre-
hensive survey of the metaheuristic algorithms focus on a
particular subject, such as optimizing control parameters of
PID models [66], optimizing mechanical design problems
[67], solving load balancing problems in cloud
123
14282
environments [68], and solving the inverse kinematics of
robot manipulators [69], and solving feature selection
problems [70]. Furthermore, most of the review papers
present in the current literature only report the published
studies and their corresponding results without providing
comparative solution outcomes between them. This
research paper takes advantage of eleven newly emerged
nature-inspired metaheuristic optimizers to solve a wide
spectrum of constrained engineering design problems and
unconstrained benchmark functions, posing extreme chal-
lenges to the researchers of the metaheuristic optimization
community. To the best knowledge of the authors, this kind
of performance assessment has not ever been conducted in
literature approaches yet. Apart from imparting knowledge
on the current trends in metaheuristic algorithm develop-
ment, this study also provides an exhaustive comparative
study on the prediction performance of the newly emerged
algorithms, and conclusive remarks will be given with
regards to their respective solution accuracy and efficacy
based on the estimation results of various benchmark cases.
These eleven algorithms have been previously hybri-
dized with some literature metaheuristic optimizers to
compensate for their intrinsic algorithmic deficiencies.
Rawa et al. [71] hybridized the Runge Kutta Optimization
algorithm with the Gradient-based Optimizer to establish
power system planning model in the presence of renewable
energy sources considering the techno-economic aspects of
the whole integrated unit. Ewees et al. [72] improved the
search efficiency of the Gradient-based optimizer by using
the Slime Mold algorithm [73] and applied this hybrid to
feature selection and benchmark problems used in CEC
2017 competitions. It is seen that the proposed hybrid can
successfully improve the classification accuracy and yields
promising predictions outperforming the contender algo-
rithms taking place in the competitions with respect to
solution efficiency. Almotairi and Abualigah [74] devel-
oped a hybrid optimization model integration of Reptile
Search algorithm and Remora Optimization algorithm [75]
and tested its effectivity over a set of benchmark cases,
including eight data clustering problems and multidimen-
sional unconstrained test problems widely employed in
literature studies. Results retrieved from the performance
evaluations show that hybrid algorithm can effectively
tackle the complexities of hard-to-solve challenging opti-
mization problems. Reptile Search Algorithm was hybri-
dized with snake Optimizer to determine the optimal
features of datasets collected from UCI repository as well
as to optimize two real-world optimization problems. The
results show that the hybrid approach can provide practical
and accurate solutions within comparatively lower com-
putational runtimes [76]. Rizk-allah and Hassanien [77]
proposed a hybrid optimization model composed of the
search equations of Equilibrium Optimization and Pattern
123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
Search Algorithms [78] to locate the optimum sitting pla-
ces of the wind turbines in a wind farm. Multi-objective
Manta Ray Foraging Optimization and SHADE [79]
algorithm were proposed for solving structural design
problems. The proposed hybrid is applied to six challeng-
ing truss optimization problems having discrete design
variables up to 942 parameters and corresponding results
have been compared to those obtained for nine state-of-the-
art metaheuristic optimizers [80]. Xiao et al. [81] combined
the governing manipulation equations of African vultures
Optimization Algorithm and Aquila Optimizer for solving
global optimization problems. Comparative estimation
results indicate that the hybrid algorithm can achieve
superior solution accuracy and stability. Ramachandran
et al. [82] proposed a hybrid optimizer whose integrated
components are Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm [83]
and Harris Hawks Optimizer for solving combined heat and
power economic dispatch problems. Sine–Cosine Algo-
rithm [84] was combined with Barnacles Mating Optimizer
[85] to solve data clustering problems. Experimental results
obtained for various clustering cases show that the pro-
posed hybrid provides superior performance improvement
resulting from the improved balance between exploration
and exploration mechanism.
The following sections will provide brief, yet explana-
tory instructions on these elven algorithms, and their
algorithmic structure will be explained.
2.2 Runge–Kutta optimizer
Runge–Kutta Optimizer (RUNGE) aims to bring a new
dimension to the optimization community by proposing a
metaphor-free algorithm, avoiding cliché methods such as
mimicking foraging strategies of animals or evolutionary
search trends. RUNGE algorithm depends on the extensive
differential equation-solving process and needs to utilize
the slopes that is employed in computing the iterative
solutions steps of a differential equation. Algorithm is
comprised of two different strategies. First phase is con-
cerned with employing the search process governed by the
fundamental rules of RUNGE algorithms, mainly deals
with exploration. Second phase is mainly ruled by
‘‘Enhanced Solution Quality (ESQ)’’ mechanism, focusing
on the promising solutions obtained in the first phase of the
algorithm. The general mathematical formulation of the
algorithm is composed of a different set of stages that will
be introduced by the following.
In the first stage, population individuals X are initialized
within the defied search bounds LB (lower bound) and UB
(upper bound) by conducting the below scheme,
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14283

 
Xi;j ¼ LBj þ rnd1  UBj  LBj ; i ¼ 1; 2; :::; N; j The numerical value of DX is computed by,
¼ 1; 2; :::; D ð1Þ    
DX ¼ 2  rnd19  rnd20  Xb  rnd21  Xavg þ c 
where N is the population size, D is the problem dimension, ð8Þ
rnd1 is a random number between 0 and 1. RUNGE
algorithm employs a novel search mechanism (SM) to c ¼ rnd22 
 ðXi  rnd23 ðUB  LBÞÞ
update the current solutions by the given scheme, iter
 exp 4  ð9Þ
( Maxiter
XCF þ SFM þ l  rnd2  Xmc if r and  0:5
Xi ¼ where numerical values of Xb and Xw can be updated by the
XmF þ SFM þ l  rnd3  Xra otherwise
following algorithmic scheme,
ð2Þ  
if f ðXi Þ\f Xpb
where XCF ¼ XC þ r1  SF  g  Xc and SFM ¼ SF  SM , Xb ¼ Xi
XmF ¼ Xm þ r2  SF  g  Xm , Xra ¼ ðXr1  Xr2 Þ, Xmc ¼
Xw ¼ Xpb
ðXm  Xc Þ, r1;2 2 ½1; 1 which can be either -1 or 1 used to
change direction of the search process. Random numbers else ð10Þ
g 2 ½0; 2 and l 2 ½0; 1 helps algorithm more effectively Xb ¼ Xpb
probe around the search space. Adaptive scale factor SF Xw ¼ Xi
can be defined as, end
SF ¼ 2  ð0:5
  rnd3 Þ  a   Enhanced Solution Quality (ESQ) phase is concerned
iter
 exp b  rnd4  ð3Þ with improving the general solution quality by using the
Maxiter different mutation operators with a view to avoid local
where Maxiter is the maximum number of iteration defined optimum points in the search space,
(   
for termination criterion. Parameter Xc and Xm and Xc given Xnew; 1 þ r  w   Xnew;1  Xavg þ randn1  if w \ 1
in Eq. (2) are calculated by the following, Xnew;2 ¼  
Xnew; 1  Xavg þ r  w  Xna otherwise
Xc ¼ Xi  rnd5 þ ð1  rnd5 Þ  Xr1 ð4Þ ð11Þ
Xm ¼ Xb  rnd6 þ ð1  rnd6 Þ  Xpb ð5Þ where r 2 f1; 0; 1g,
  
where Xb and Xbp are, respectively, so-far-obtained-best Xna ¼  u  Xnew;1  Xavg þ randn1 w ¼ rndð0; 2Þ
solution and current best solution within the current itera-   
iter
tion. SM parameter given in Eq. (2) is computed by the  exp 5  rnd24  ;
Maxiter
below formula,
Xr1 þ Xr2 þ Xr3
ðXRK ÞDX Xavg ¼ ; Xnew;1 ¼ rnd25
SM ¼ ð6Þ 3
6  Xavg þ ð1  rnd25 Þ  Xb
where XRK can be computed by, ð12Þ
XRK ¼ k1 þ 2  k2 þ 2  k3 þ k4 In the case if the fitness value of Xnew,2 is not better than
ðrnd7  Xw  u  Xb Þ that of the ith solution Xi then algorithm provides another
k1 ¼ option to modify and update the current value of Xi by
2DX
ðrnd8  ðXw þ rnd9  k1  DX ÞÞ  UX employing the following the simple formulation,
k2 ¼  
2DX Xnew;3 ¼ Xnew;2  rnd26  Xnew;2 þ SF 
ðrnd10  ðXw þ rnd11  0:5k1  DX ÞÞ  UXb  rnd27  XRK þ 2  rnd28  Xb  Xnew;2
k3 ¼
2DX ð13Þ
ðrnd12  ðXw þ rnd13  k3  DX ÞÞ  UXb2
k4 ¼ Below algorithm provides the pseudo-code of Runge-
2DX
u ¼ round ð1 þ rnd14 Þ  ð1  rnd15 Þ Kutta optimizer.
UX ¼ ðu  Xb þ rnd16  k1  DX Þ
UXb ¼ ðu  Xb þ rnd17  0:5k2  DX Þ
UXb2 ¼ ðu  Xb þ rnd18  k3  DX Þ
ð7Þ

123
14284 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

2.3 Gradient-based optimizer

 3 !2
iter
Gradient-based Optimizer (GRAD) is found upon a math- b ¼ bmin þ ðbmax  bmin Þ  1 ð18Þ
ematical concept borrowed from Newton’s method for Maxiter
solving optimization problems. Algorithm consists of two
where bmin and bmax are, respectively, 0.2 and 1.2; e is a
leading mechanisms: (1) Gradient Search Rule (GSR) and
relatively small number between 0 and 0.1; and randn is a
(2) Local Search Operator. Main elements forming the
normally distributed random number. The parameter Dx
essential mechanisms of GRAD algorithm are provided
can be computed by,
below.  
GRAD algorithm is initialized with generating trial ðxbest  xr1 Þ þ d
Dx ¼ rnd4   
 ð19Þ
population individuals by the following, 2
  x þ x þ x þ x 
Xi;j ¼ LBj þ rnd1  UBj  LBj ; i ¼ 1; 2; :::; N;  r1 r2 r3 r4 
d ¼ 2  rnd5    xi  ð20Þ
j ¼ 1; 2; :::; D 4
ð14Þ where r1, r2, r3, and r4 are randomly selected different
integer numbers within the range [1,N], which are also
GRAD employs an efficient search mechanism called
different from the current population member i. By inte-
Gradient Search Rule (GSR) to explore the search space,
grating the so-far-obtained xbest solution with the current
which is based on Newton’s famous gradient formula [86].
population member xi, new solution vector X2 is produced
2Dx  xi by the following scheme,
X1i ¼ xi  randn  q  þ rnd2  q
ðxworst  xbest þ eÞ
2Dx  xi
 ðxbest  xi Þ X2 ¼ xbest  randn  q  þ rnd6  q
ðypi  yqi þ eÞ
ð15Þ  ðxr1  xr2 Þ
q ¼ 2  rnd3  a  a ð16Þ ð21Þ
     
 3p 3p  jyiþ1 þ xi j
a ¼ b  sin þ sin b   ð17Þ ypi ¼ rnd7  þ rnd8  Dx ð22Þ
2 2 2

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14285

 
jyiþ1 þ xi j if rand \0:5
yqi ¼ rnd9   rnd10  Dx ð23Þ
2 if rand \0:5
2Dx  xi Xnew ¼ xi þ rnd14  ðf1  ðu1  xbest  u2  xk ÞÞ
yiþ1 ¼ xi  randn  þ rnd11  w1
ðxworst  xbest þ eÞ þ f2  q  ðu3  ðX2  X1ÞÞ þ u2  0:5  ðxr1  xr2 Þ
 ðxbest  xi Þ else
ð24Þ Xnew ¼ xbest þ rnd14  ðf1  ðu1  xbest  u2  xk ÞÞ
Using X1 and X2, new position of the current solution þ f2  q  ðu3  ðX2  X1ÞÞ þ u2  0:5  ðxr1  xr2 Þ
for the next iteration is calculated by the following end
expression, end
Xiiterþ1 ¼ rnd12  ðrnd13  X1 þ ð1  rnd13 Þ  X2Þ ð27Þ
ð25Þ
þ ð1  rnd12 Þ  X3
where f1 stands for a random number between [- 1,1], f2 is
X3 ¼ xi  q  ðX2  X1Þ ð26Þ a random number drawn from a normal distribution with a
standard deviation of 1 and mean value of 0. Random
Local Escaping Operator (LEO) is a conducive operator
numbers u1, u2, and u3 are calculated by the following
to avoid local optimum points over the search space. LEO
expressions,
updates the current solution with considering the contri- (
butions of xbest, X1, X2, and two randomly selected trial 2  rnd15 if rand\0:5
solutions from the population xr1 and xr2. Below-given u1 ¼ ð28Þ
1:0 otherwise
manipulation scheme describes the formulation of LEO (
mechanism, rnd16 if rand\0:5
u2 ¼ ð29Þ
1:0 otherwise
(
rnd17 if rand\0:5
u3 ¼ ð30Þ
1:0 otherwise

where rand is a random number between 0 and 1. The

following scheme is used to calculate the trial solution xk,

123
14286 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

(
xrand if rand \0:5 best population member of the poor population; and
xk ¼ ð31Þ rand(0,1) is the randomly generated value between 0 and 1
xp otherwise
drawn from uniform distribution. New position of the poor
xrand ¼ LB þ rand  ðUB  LBÞ ð32Þ population individuals within the search space is updated
by the following simple formulation,
where xrand is a random solution produced between upper
and lower bounds and xp is random solution selected from POPnew
poor;i ¼ POP
old
 poor;i 
the trial population. Below algorithm gives the pseudo- þ randð0; 1Þ  Pattern  POPold ð35Þ
poor;i
code of Gradient-based Optimization algorithm.
where POPnew
poor;i is the new position of the ith poor member;
POPold
poor;i is the current position of the ith poor member;
and Pattern variable is resulted from the collective contri-
2.4 Poor and rich optimization algorithm bution of the best, worst and mean values of the rich
population members expressed by the below-given
Proposed by Mosavi and Bardsiri in 2019 [17], Poor and formulation,
Rich optimization (PRO) algorithm is a multi-population
human-based optimization approach inspired from the POPold old old
rich;best þ POPrich;mean þ POPrich;worst
Pattern ¼ ð36Þ
social differences of the individuals living in a particular 3
community. It is basically conceptualized upon the below-
where POPoldrich;best is the current best member of the rich
given two decisive points.
population; POPold rich;mean is the average member of the rich
• Each poor population member aims to improve his or population; POPold rich;worst is the worst member of the rich
her social situation by gaining wealth or learning an
population. There may occur sharp and rapid declines or
experience or knowledge from the rich individuals.
increases in the wealth status of the population members
• Each rich member from the population aims to broaden
resulted from unpredictable or unexpected changes in the
the social gap between the poor individuals by grasping
socio-economic affairs. Since it is nearly impossible to
their limited wealth.
predict the ongoing trends of these decisive factors, a
First, a random population is initialized between the mutation operator is employed to poor and rich individuals,
predefined upper and lower bounds to construct trial pop- which is realized by implementation of a random number
ulation members composed of poor and rich individuals. with zero mean and variance one into the ruling equation
Then, each member is evaluated based on their respective through the following expression,
fitness values and sorted in an ascending order based on
if rand(0,1) \Pmut
their corresponding objective function values. As men-
tioned, there are two distinct subpopulations formed by the POPnew new
rich;i ¼ POPrich;i þ randn ð37Þ
poor and rich members expressed by, end
Nmain ¼ Nrich þ Npoor ð33Þ if rand(0,1) \Pmut
where Nrich and Npoor are size of the rich POPrich and poor POPnew new
poor;i ¼ POPpoor;i þ randn ð38Þ
POPpoor individuals. Current position of each rich member end
is updated by the below formulation,
where Pmut is the mutation probability whose numerical
POPnew old
rich;i ¼ POPrich;i value is decided by the user experience; POPnew
  rich;i and
þ rand ð0; 1Þ POPold
rich;i  POP old
poor; best ð34Þ POPnew
poor;i are, respectively, updated position vectors rich
and poor members of the population after perturbed by a
where POPnewrich;i is the new position of the ith member of random parameter randn, which is generated by the aver-
rich population; POPold rich;i is the current position of the ith age of 0 and variance of 1.
member of the rich population; POPold poor;best is the current

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14287

associated with the encircling of the prey individuals

facilitating the high and belly walking foraging move-
2.5 Reptile search algorithm ments. Surrounding the prey members within the prede-
fined search space emphasizing on the extensive
Reptile Search Algorithm (REPTILE) is a metaheuristic exploration over the search domain can be modeled by the
algorithm simulating the social behaviors and food- following,
searching strategies of the crocodile reptiles, which include 8  
encircling and hunting mechanisms of the detected prey >
> Best iter
 g iter
 b  Riter
>
> j i;j i;j
individuals. It is a population-based gradient-free algorithm >
<
iterþ1  randð0; 1Þ iter  Maxiter=4
found to be efficient for tackling hard-to-solve engineering Xi;j ¼
>
> iter iter iter
problems. Similar to the majority of the metaheuristic > Bestj  Xr1;j  ES  randð0; 1Þ
>
>
:
algorithms, population initialization is the first phase of the ðiter [ Maxiter=4Þ and ðiter  Maxiter=2Þ
algorithm responsible for generating the set of candidate ð40Þ
crocodiles stochastically. Swarm members can be produced
by the given equation, where Bestjiter is the jth dimension of the global best
  solution obtained so far, rand(0,1) symbolizes a random
Xi;j ¼ LBj þ randð0; 1Þ  UBj  LBj i 2 f1; :::; N g
j 2 f1; :::; Dg number between 0 and 1, iter is the current iteration and
Maxiter is the maximum number of iteration, giter i;j is the
ð39Þ
hunting factor parameter defined for the jth solution of the
where UBj and LBj are upper and lower bounds of the jth ith member calculated by Eq. (41), b is a control parameter
dimension; Xi,j is the jth dimension of the ith population fixed to 0.1, Ri,j accounts for the decreased search space
member; rand(0,1) is a uniformly distributed random computed by Eq. (42), r1 is a random integer between 1
number within [0,1]; N is the size of the crocodile swarm; iter
and N, Xr1;j is the jth dimension of a random crocodile at
D is the problem dimension. REPTILE algorithm is based position r1. ESiter is an iteratively decreasing random
on the two governing search mechanisms of exploration number between -2 and 2 calculated by Eq. (43),
and exploitation. These algorithmic features are activated
by the movements of the crocodiles while foraging for the gi;j ¼ Bestj  Pi;j ð41Þ
available food sources or prey. Search activity is seg- Bestjiter  xr2;j
mented into four different stages representing the natural Ri;j ¼ ð42Þ
Bestjiter  e
food search behaviors of the foraging crocodiles. Explo-
ration phase of REPTILE is activated by the first two stages

123
14288 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

  8
1 >
> Bestjiter Piter
i;j randð0;1Þ ðiter\0.75MaxiterÞ
ESiter ¼ 2  randð1; 1Þ  1  ð43Þ >
>
Maxiter >
>
< and ðiter 0.5Maxiter Þ
>
iterþ1
where e is a small value fixed to 1E-10, r2 is random Xi;j ¼ Bestjiter giter iter
i;j eRi;j
>
>
integer between 1 and N, r3 stands for a random value >
>
>
> randð0;1Þ ðiter Maxiter Þ and
between - 1 and 1, Pi,j is the percentage difference >
:
ðiter 0.75Maxiter Þ
between the position of the best crocodile and the current
crocodile computed by, ð45Þ
Xi;j  Xaver;j where Bestjiter is the current best solution is obtained so far
Pi;j ¼ a þ   ð44Þ
Bestj  UBj  LBj þ e until the current iteration, giter
i;j is the mathematical operator
structured by the contribution of the current best solution
where Xaver,j is the average solution of the jth dimension, a
Bestjiter and Piter iter
i;j parameters calculated by Eq. (41), Ri;j is
is a sensitive parameter defined for controlling the explo-
ration accuracy of the algorithm and set to 0.1. Exploitation the reduce function defined for the iterative reduction of the
phase of the REPTILE algorithm is occurred by the hunting search space which is computed by Eq. (42). Below simple
process related with the cooperation and coordination of algorithmic scheme describes the essential steps of the
the encircling crocodiles. After the completion of the REPTILE algorithm.
exploration phase, foraging crocodiles focus on the target
prey individuals and employed hunting strategies make it
easier for the crocodile individuals to get closer to the
target prey. The mathematical model representing the
exploitation mechanism taking place in the second phase of
the algorithm can be expressed by the following,

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14289

2.6 Snake optimizer maximum number of iteration defined for the termination
condition. Available food quantity (Q) is computed by,
This nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithm simulates the  
iter  Maxiter
intrinsic mating behaviors of snakes, which likely occurred Q ¼ 0:5  exp ð50Þ
Maxiter
at high temperatures where food sources are abundant
otherwise, snakes only concentrate on food searching Exploration phase takes place where snakes are only
rather than mating. The proposed algorithm is built upon searching food occurs when the available food quantity (Q)
two complementary mechanisms of exploration and is lower than the threshold limit of 0.25. To model this
exploration. Exploration process is influenced by environ- phase, following equation is put into practice,
mental factors such that cold surroundings an available is iterþ1
Xmale;i iter
¼ Xmale;rand  2  Amale
not present in this case, but only exhaustive food searching
 ððUB  LBÞ  randð0; 1Þ þ LBÞ ð51Þ
is dominant. Exploitation phase includes many shifts and
transitions to obtain the global optimum point. In condi- where Xmale,i is the position of the ith male, Xmale,rand is the
tions where food is available and but hot temperature is random male in the population, rand(0,1) is a uniform
also evident, snake individuals only focus on eating the random number between 0, and Amale is the ability of the
available food. On the contrary, when food is available at male to find food resources and can be computed by,
cold environmental conditions, snakes opt for mating.  
fitmale;rand
Mating process also has two cases, which are fight mode Amale ¼ exp ð52Þ
fitmale;i
and mating mode. In the fighting phase, each male snake
fights for mating the best female snake while each female where fitmale,rand is the fitness value of a random male
snake seeking to select the best male snake. In the mating Xmale,rand; fitmale,i is the fitness value of the ith male,
process, mating occurs between each selected pair iterþ1 iter
depending on the availability of the food resources in the Xfemale;i ¼ Xfemale;rand  0:05  Afemale
  
habitat.  UBj  LBj  randð0; 1Þ þ LBj ð53Þ
Algorithm is initialized by generating the trial snake
where Xfemale,i is the position of the ith female, Xfemale,rand
individuals by the below-given equation,
is the position of random female, Afemale is the female
Xi;j ¼ LBj þ randð0;1Þ ability to find food resources and calculated by the fol-
 UBj  LBj ; i¼ 1; 2;:::;N; j¼ 1; 2;:::;D lowing expressions,
ð46Þ    
fitmale;best fitfemale;rand
FF ¼ exp ; Afemale;i ¼ exp 
Xi,j is the jth dimension of the ith snake in the swarm, fiti fitfemale;i
LBj and UBj are, respectively, lower and upper bounds of ð54Þ
the jth dimension of the optimization problem. Algorithm
where fitfemale,rand is the fitness value of a random female,
assumes that the whole population is divided into two
and fitfemale,i is the fitness value of ith female in the pop-
subgroups consisting of females and males such that 50%
ulation. Exploitation phase takes place when there is
of the population is male while remaining individuals are
abundant amount of food sufficient enough to supply
female. Snake swarm is divided into two equal subgroups
energy for mating process. This phase occurs if the avail-
by the following equation,
able food quantity (Q) is above the defined threshold limit.
Nmale ¼ N=2 ð47Þ Furthermore, if the surrounding environment temperature
Nfemale ¼ N  Nmale ð48Þ is higher than temperature scale threshold limit of 0.6, then
the snakes will only employ foraging activities which is
where Nmale and Nfemale are, respectively, size of the male modeled by,
and female snake individuals. Best individuals in the male  
iterþ1 iter
and female snake population are decided and symbolized Xi;j ¼ Xfood  2  Temp  randð0; 1Þ  Xfood  Xi;j
Bestmale and Bestfemale. In addition, Food position ffood is
ð55Þ
also obtained. Temperature of the surrounding environment
(Temp) is calculated by the following, iter
where Xi;j is an individual in the snake swarm (female or
  male) for the current iteration; Xfood is the food location in
iter
Temp ¼ exp ð49Þ the search space which is essence the best solution obtained
Maxiter
so far. If the environment temperature is lower than the
where iter is the current iteration and Maxiter is the defined threshold limit of 0.6, which indicates cold air
conditions is prevalent then the snakes will perform

123
14290 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

fighting or mating activities. Fighting mode can be math- iterþ1

Xfemale;i iter
¼ Xfemale;i þ c3  Mfemale  randð0; 1Þ
ematically simulated by the following equation,  
iter iter
 Q  Xmale;i  Xfemale;i ð61Þ
iterþ1 iter
Xmale;i ¼ Xmale;i þ c3  FM  randð0; 1Þ
 
iter where Mmale and Mfemale refer to the mating ability of male
 Q  Xfemale;best  Xmale;i ð56Þ
and female individuals in the entire population and calcu-
where Xmale,i is the position of the ith male; Xfemale,best is lated by the following equation,
 
the location of the best female; and FM is the fighting fitfemale;i
ability of the male search agent, Mmale ¼ exp ð62Þ
fitmale;i
iterþ1 iter  
Xfemale;i ¼ Xfemale;i þ c3  FF  randð0; 1Þ fitmale;i
  Mfemale ¼ exp ð63Þ
iter
 Q  Xmale;best  Xfemale;i ð57Þ fitfemale;i

where Xfemale,i is the position of the ith female individual; If egg hatch occurs, then worst male and female are
Xmale,best is the best male in the population; FF is the replaced by the following equation,
fighting ability of the female agents. FM and FF are, Xworst;male ¼ LB þ randð0; 1Þ  ðUB  LBÞ ð64Þ
respectively, calculated by the following terms, Xworst;female ¼ LB þ randð0; 1Þ  ðUB  LBÞ ð65Þ
 
fitfemale;best
FM ¼ exp ð58Þ where Xworst,male and Xworst,female are worst members male
fiti
and female subgroups in the population. The flag direction
 
fitmale;best operator ± facilitates the mechanism of improving the
FF ¼ exp ð59Þ
fiti overall population diversity in the population, which
enables an abrupt change in the direction of the responsible
where fitfemale,best is the fitness of the best female; fitmale,best search agents to achieve a good probing around the search
is the fitness of the best male; fiti is the fitness value of the space. Below algorithm provides the pseudo-code of Snake
ith search agent. Mating mode is activated by the below Optimizer, explaining the step-by-step implementation of
equations, the above-defined manipulation equations into the algo-
iterþ1
Xmale;i iter
¼ Xmale;i þ c3  Mmale  randð0; 1Þ rithm framework.
 
iter iter
 Q  Xfemale;i  Xmale;i ð60Þ

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14291

2.7 Equilibrium optimizer exploitation. EQUIL chooses a random concentration (Ceq)

among the five trial solutions from the equilibrium pool,
Equilibrium Optimizer (EQUIL) is a nature-inspired phy-  
Ceq ¼ randi Ceq;pool ð68Þ
sics-based algorithm simulating the behavior of the react-
ing particles in the equilibrium conditions into a well- The exponential terms F is crafty in maintaining the
established mathematical model. Each search agent is balance between exploration and exploitation phases and
represented by its respective concentration in the control calculated by,
volume in which the prevailing chemical reaction occurs.  
F ¼ a1  signðr  0:5Þ  ekt  1 ð69Þ
EQUIL is conceptualized on the basic principles in con-
trolling the balance between mass and volume of the non- where a1 is a constant parameter, r and k are uniform
reacting chemical elements. Concentration of each particle random numbers within [0,1], sign() represents the signum
is iteratively updated by the intelligently devised search function, t is an iterative parameter that is varied with
equations with respect to the optimal solution. EQUIL increasing number of iterations and computed by,
algorithm is efficient in balancing exploration and  ða2 Maxiter
iter
iter
Þ
exploitation mechanisms, avoiding entrapment of local t ¼ 1 ð70Þ
points in the search domain and premature convergence. Maxiter
Search procedure is mainly described taking into account
where a2 is a constant value assigned by the user, iter is the
of Equilibrium pool (Ceq,pool), exponential term (F) and a
current iteration, Maxiter is the maximum number of iter-
generation rate (G). Implementation of these characteristic
ations. Previous experiences of the solution outcomes
parameters into the base algorithm will be described in the
obtained from various optimization benchmark functions
forthcoming sections. Algorithm strives to stabilize the
with different characteristics indicate that when a1 = 2.0
concentration of the reacting particles in the chemical
and a2 = 1.0, EQUIL reaches its peak ability to converge
equilibrium point. EQUIL has three major steps: (1) con-
the optimum solution. Generation rate (G) is another
centration initializing, (2) generating the equilibrium pool
important component of EQUIL, which influences the over
and candidate solutions and (3) updating concentrations to
search efficiency of the algorithm. This parameter admin-
reach the global optimum solution of the problem. Trial
isters the exploitation ability of EQUIL during the course
solutions representing the random particles defined in the
of iterations and defined as,
search ranges can be expressed by the following,  
  G ¼ GCP  Ceq  k  C  F ð71Þ
Ci;j ¼ Cmin;j þ randð0; 1Þ  Cmax;j  Cmin;j
ð66Þ
i ¼ 1; 2; ::; N; j ¼ 1; 2; :::; D where C is the current concentration of a particle and GCP
where Cmin and Cmax are lower and upper limits of the is a control parameter defined by,
(
concentration limits, Ci,j is the jth dimension of the ith trial 0:5  r1 r2  0:5
concentration, N is the population size symbolizing the GCP ¼ ð72Þ
0 otherwise
number of non-reacting particles in the equilibrium, and D
is the problem dimension. In the context of EQUIL algo- where r1 and r2 are random numbers within the range [0,1].
rithm, optimum solution is achieved when chemical com- Finally, general solution update mechanism taking into
ponents reach the equilibrium point. Algorithm employs account overall above-defined search components are
five different concentrations to the unknown equilibrium activated by the following search scheme,
state. Equilibrium is composed of the so-far-obtained four   G
best solutions denoted by Ceq,1, Ceq,2, Ceq,3, Ceq,4 and an C iterþ1 ¼ Ceq
iter
þ Citer  Ceq
iter
Fþ ð1  F Þ
average value of these four concentrations Ceq,aver, kV
ð73Þ
Ceq;pool ¼ Ceq;1 ; Ceq;2 ; Ceq;3 ; Ceq;4 ; Ceq;aver ð67Þ
Below-given algorithm provides the constructive steps
In above equation, the first four particles are associated of Equilibrium Optimization Algorithm.
with exploration while the remaining last is related with the

123
14292 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

to collect the available plankton missed by the frontier

manta ray, so there exists a durable continuity in capturing
2.8 Manta ray foraging optimization algorithm the plankton food source. The mathematical model
expressing the chain foraging of manta ray is given by,
Manta Ray Foraging Optimization (MANTA) is a recently 8  
developed metaheuristic optimizer inspired by the foraging >
> xiter þ rand1 ð0; 1Þ  xiter best  xi
iter
>
>
i
>
>  
skills of intelligent artificial manta rays, providing a ver- < þ a  xiterbest  xiteri ; i¼1
satile optimization tool, which has proven its prediction xiterþ1
i ¼  
>
> xiter þ rand2 ð0; 1Þ  xiter  xiter ð74Þ
accuracy and consistency over a wide range of optimiza- >
> i i1 i
>
>  
tion benchmark problems. Algorithm focuses on the : þ a  xiter  xiter ; i ¼ 2; 3; :::; N
best i
intrinsic food search behaviors of manta rays which are pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
founded upon different strategies of chain foraging, a ¼ 2  rand3 ð0; 1Þ  jlogðrand4 ð0; 1ÞÞj
cyclone foraging, and somersault foraging to provide where a is the weight coefficient, randj(0,1) j = 1,2,3,4 are
favorable solution outcomes for various types of opti- random numbers defined between 0 and 1, xiter best is the
mization problems. Representative mathematical models of plankton area with the highest density standing for the best
these foraging skills will be explicitly explained below.
solution obtained so far, xiter
i is the ith manta ray (search
agent) at iteration iter.
2.8.1 Chain foraging
2.8.2 Cyclone Foraging
Artificial manta rays form a solid foraging chain by linking
their heads to tails in a line. In the context of MANTA,
Cyclone foraging is another strategy adopted for this
plankton location with higher concentrations is assumed to
algorithm. When the plankton location is detected deep
be the best solution obtained through the course of itera-
down under the water, manta rays form a spiral foraging
tions. Manta rays aim to locate the position of the resources
chain and approach toward the food source. Thanks to the
where the food source plankton is abundant and swim
robust spiral movement directed to the abundant food
toward these fertile regions following the leader of the
resources, each element of chain follows the one in front of
chain. Furthermore, the chain foraging mechanism enables

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14293

8
it and move toward the highly concentrated plankton areas. > xiter
>
> rand þ rand9 ð0; 1Þ
Cyclone foraging movement is modeled by the following >
>    
>
<  xiter iter
þ b  xiter iter
mathematical expression, rand  xi rand  xi ; i¼1
8 iter   xiterþ1
i ¼  
> xbest þ rand5 ð0; 1Þ  xiter iter >
> x iter iter
þ rand10 ð0; 1Þ  xi1  xi iter
>
> best  xi >
> rand
> >
>
>
>
 iter iter
 : þ b  xiter  xiter ; i ¼ 2; 3; :::; N
>
>
> þ b  xbest  x i ; i¼1 rand i
<  
iterþ1
xi ¼ xbest þ rand6 ð0; 1Þ  xiter
iter
 xiter xiter
rand ¼ LB þ rand11 ð0; 1Þ  ðUB  LBÞ
> i1 i
>
>   ð76Þ
>
> þ b  xiter iter
>
> best  xi ;
>
> where LB and UB are, respectively, lower and upper
:
i ¼ 2; 3; :::; N
  bounds of the search space.
ðMaxiter  iter þ 1Þ
b ¼ 2  exp rand7 ð0; 1Þ 
Maxiter 2.8.3 Somersault foraging
 sinð2  p  rand8 ð0; 1ÞÞ
ð75Þ This foraging mechanism considers the food location as a
reference point where each artificial search agent pivots
It can be observed from Eq. (75) that the best food around this point to somersault to a new fertile region.
location is taken as a reference point for this search They position themselves around the best solution and
mechanism, which accounts for the full exploitation of the update their current position by using the below-given
promising regions obtained by the previous chain foraging mathematical model simulating the somersault movement,
mechanism. In addition, the cyclone foraging mechanism
xiterþ1 ¼ xiter
i  þ2
makes a significant contribution to the global exploration i 
capability by introducing a random solution taken as a  rand12 ð0:1Þ  xiter iter
best  rand13 ð0:1Þ  xi ; i
¼ 1; 2; :::; N
pivot reference point, which is defined by the following,
ð77Þ
Below algorithm explains the implementation of the
Manta Ray Foraging Optimization algorithm in the form of
a descriptive pseudo-code representation.

123
14294
2.9 African vultures optimization algorithm
Afrıcan Vultures Optimization Algorithm (AFRICAN) is a
recently emerged metaheuristic optimizer simulating the
foraging behaviors of intelligent African Vultures. Algo-
rithm follows the below-defined criteria to solve opti-
mization problems.
• African vulture population consists of N individuals,
which devoted themselves to solve high-dimensional
optimization problems.
• African vulture population is segmented into three
subgroups which are decided by the fitness quality of
each competent African vulture. The best solution
belongs to the first subgroup while the second best is
involved in the second group, and the remaining
vultures take part in the third subgroup.
• Fitness values of population individuals reflect their
respective favorable merits and drawbacks in the
context of the algorithm such that the weakest one
between the vultures suffer from starvation is the worst
vulture, while the healthiest one is the strongest one
considered to be the best solution between them.
AFRICAN algorithm aims to accumulate the candidate
solutions nearby the so-far-obtained best solution to
eliminate inferior points faced in the iterations.
AFRICAN algorithm employs five different foraging
strategies taking into account of the above-mentioned
assumptions to mathematical model the tendencies of
artificial vultures.
2.9.1 Strategy 1—choosing the best vultures in the group
After forming the trial population, all vultures are evalu-
ated based on their respective fitness value, and the best
and the second best vulture are selected, which are,
respectively, sole members of the first and second group.
Current situation of the competitive best vulture are
updated within each iteration, and the entire vulture swarm
population is re-evaluated,
( occurs in the vicinity of the best-known food location so
Bestvul1 if pi ¼ r1
Ri ¼ ð78Þ
Bestvul2 if pi ¼ r2
Here in Eq. (78), Bestvul1 represents the best vulture in
the population while Bestvul2 is the second best vulture
among them; parameters r1 and r2 are randomly defined
numbers within the range [0,1] whose total summation is
equal to 1. A famous roulette-selection technique is prac-
ticed to determine the probability value pi,
fiti
pi ¼ P
n ð79Þ
fiti
i¼1
123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
Here fiti is the fitness value of a vulture which is a
member of either first or second group, n is the total
number of groups of vulture.
2.9.2 Strategy 2—determining the starvation rate
of the vultures
Starvation degree of the vultures plays a critical role in
employing the adequate manipulation scheme to the group
members. If a random vulture in a swarm does not suffer
from starvation, it has a sufficient life energy to seek food
across longer distances. Otherwise, if a vulture lacks of
energy, then it has not the opportunity to fly to longer
distances to search food, and shows aggressive attacking
behavior toward potential prey individuals. Starvation rate
should be fairly determined in order for maintaining bal-
ance between the exploration and exploitation phases. The
parameter defining the starvation degree is called the
hunger level F computed by Eq. (80), which is a decisive
indicator for shifting the exploration to exploitation phase,
F ¼ ð2 
 randð0; 1Þ þ
 1Þ  randð1; 1Þ
iter
 1 þt ð80Þ
Maxiter
where rand(- 1,1) is a random value between - 1.0 and
1.0 and t is calculated by the following,
t ¼ randð2;
 2Þ    
w p  iter w p  iter
 sin þ cos 1
2  Maxiter 2  Maxiter
ð81Þ
The possibility of performing the exploitation mecha-
nism is determined by assigning a specific value to user-
defined parameter w, and rand(- 2,2) is a random value
between - 2.0 and 2.0. Numerical value of F gradually
decreases with increasing iterations, according to the
Eq. (80). When absolute value of F is higher than 1.0,
algorithm enters into the exploration phase to search for
possible fold locations. Otherwise, food search process
far, facilitating the exploitation mechanism.
2.9.3 Strategy 3—performing the exploration phase
In the search condition of high exploration, vultures have
the ability to detect the poor and unhealthy dying animals
as a food source. However, their ultimate task is exhaustive
and difficult as they need to perform an elaborative scru-
tinization over the entire range of their living habitat for a
certain amount of time and reach for long distance to probe
around the possible food locations. AFRICAN algorithm
enables to perform two different search strategies in a
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14295

random manner, which is decided by a parameter P1 valued conflict between the competent vultures on food acquisi-
between 0 and 1. To realize the exploration process, a tion when food sources are limited and detected food area
random number within [0,1] is generated. Each vulture is crowded. In that condition, strong and powerful vultures
chooses its search environment based on its satiation level, do not prefer to share their food with the weak ones. On the
which is decided by the below procedure, contrary, weak vultures aim to tire the strong vultures and
8 iter grasp the collected food from the healthy strong vultures
>
> Ri  Diter  Fiiter P1  rand1 ð0; 1Þ
>
>
i
causing some small conflicts and arguments between them.
< Riter  F iter þ rand ð0; 1Þ
Xiiterþ1 ¼ i i 2
ð82Þ These attacking behaviors can be modeled by the below-
>
>  ððUB  LBÞ  rand3 ð0; 1Þ þ LBÞ given equations,
>
>
:
P1 \rand1 ð0; 1Þ Xiiterþ1 ¼ Diter  ðF þ rand ð0; 1ÞÞ  dt ð85Þ
i

where Xiiterþ1 is the location of the ith vulture for the next dt ¼ R i  Xi ð86Þ
iteration, randi(0,1) i = 1,2,3 is a uniform random number
where Di is calculated by Eq. (83), Satiation rate of the
defined within [0,1], Ri is calculated by Eq. (78), Fi is
vultures F calculated by Eq. (80), rand(0,1) is a random
computed by Eq. (80), LB and UB are lower and upper
number defined between 0 and 1, Ri is the best vultures of
bounds of the search space, and Di is the spatial distance
two different groups computed by Eq. (78), and Xi is the
between the specific vulture and the current optimal value,
  current position of the vultures.
Diter
i ¼ rand ð0; 2Þ  Riter
i  Xiiter  ð83Þ Vultures employ spiral attacking movement, which
mathematically models the rotational flight movement
where rand(0,2) is a random number between 0 and 2. between all vulture and best vultures of two different
groups,
2.9.4 Strategy 4—performing exploitation phase  
rand ð0; 1Þ  Xi
S 1 ¼ Ri   cosðXi Þ
To maintain balance between exploration and exploitation 2p
  ð87Þ
phases, the absolute value of F parameter is evaluated. If rand ð0; 1Þ  Xi
S2 ¼ R i   sinðXi Þ
this value is lower than 1.0, AFRICAN enters the 2p
exploitation phase, which is composed of two different
Xiiterþ1 ¼ Ri  ðS1 þ S2 Þ ð88Þ
complementary mechanisms. P2 and P3 are two important
decisive parameters responsible for determining the gov- Second phase of the exploitation commence with the
erning search strategy. Parameter P2 is used to choose the consistent siege and aggressive strife of the accumulated
search strategy employed in the first exploitation phase, vultures over the previously explored search regions. If the
while parameter P3 is utilized to determine the available numerical value of jF j is lower than 0.5, the random value
search strategy practiced in the second phase. First phase of between 0 and 1 (randP3) is generated. If this random value
the exploitation occurs when the numerical value of jF j is is lower than or equal to the user-defined parameter P3
between 0.5 and 1.0, in which two different strategies of then, the considered search strategy is to make crowded the
rotating flight and siege fight are carried out in a random explored prey location with different type of vultures.
manner. Parameter P2 is used to decide which strategy is Otherwise, the aggressive siege fight strategy is employed.
performed at this stage of the algorithm, which should be The following procedure is used to decide which available
valued before the search operation and should be between 0 search strategy is employed between the two above-men-
and 1. A random value between 0 and 1, randP2(0,1), is tioned alternatives,
generated at the initial stage of this phase. If the numerical (  
Eq: ð91Þ if P3  randp3
value of this random number randP2(0,1) is higher than or X iterþ1
¼   ð89Þ
equal to that of parameter P2 then siege fight strategy is Eq: ð92Þ if P3 \randp3
implemented. Otherwise, if this random number is lower
Artificial vultures accumulate over the possible food
than that of parameter P2 then the rotating flight strategy is
sources by examining the movements of all vultures in the
employed. This selection process is modeled by,
(   population. Below formulations represent the typical for-
iterþ1 Eq: ð85Þ P2  randp2 ð0; 1Þ aging behaviors performed by the vultures, facilitating the
Xi ¼   ð84Þ
Eq: ð88Þ P2 \randp2 ð0; 1Þ second phase of the exploitation.

Vulture enters into competition for food phase when

jF j [ 0:5, which corresponds to a state that vultures are
satiated and have sufficient life energy. There may be a

123
14296 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

!
iter
Bestvul1  Xiiter aggressive behaviors on their hard quest for food, which is
iter
A1 ¼ Bestvul1  2
F mathematically modeled by the following scheme,
iter  ðX iter Þ
Bestvul1 i
! ð90Þ Xiiterþ1 ¼ Ri  jdðtÞj  F  LevyðDÞ ð92Þ
iter
iter Bestvul2  Xiiter
A2 ¼ Bestvul2  2
F In Eq. (92), d(t) is the distance between a vulture in the
iter  ðX iter Þ
Bestvul2 i
population and one of the best vultures in two groups,
iter iter
In Eq. (89), Bestvul1 and Bestvul2 are, respectively, the which is calculated by Eq. (86), Levy() function stands for
best vultures of the first and second groups for the current the levy flight distribution [87] calculated by the following,
iteration, F is the current satiation rates of the vultures, Xiiter ur
LevyðDÞ ¼ 0:01 
is the position of the ith vulture for the current iteration. 1
jmjb
Then, the updated spatial position of the ith vulture can be 0   1b1
ð93Þ
computed by the following scheme, Cð1 þ bÞ  sin pb 2
r¼ @   A
A1 þ A2 b1
Xiiterþ1 ¼ ð91Þ C 1þb2  b  2ð 2 Þ
2
When jF j\0:5, vultures become unhealthy and weak where D is the problem dimension, u and v are random
due to starvation and do not have the power to deal with the numbers between 0 and 1, and b is a constant value fixed to
strong vultures in the population, therefore showing 1.5. Below algorithm shows the explicit pseudo-code rep-
resentation of the African vultures optimization algorithm.

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
2.9.5 Aquila optimization algorithm
Aquila Optimization Algorithm (AQUILA) is a swarm
intelligence metaheuristic algorithm simulating the intelli-
gent swarming and foraging behaviors of artificial aquilas,
which are skilled and crafty hunters after humans with
strong legs and sharp claws. These physical characteristics
enable aquilas to catch various types of prey in their living
habitat. They live in high mountains and other higher
locations. AQUILA algorithm starts with initializing the
trial candidate aquila population defined between the pre-
scribed upper and lower bounds. Each candidate solution is
generated by the below-given equation,
 
Xi;j ¼ LBj þ rand ð0; 1Þ  UBj  LBj i ¼ 1; 2; :::; N
j ¼ 1; 2; :::; D
ð94Þ
where N is the population size, D is the problem dimension,
UB and LB are correspondingly upper and lower bounds of
the search space. Algorithm imitates the hunting behaviors
of the foraging aquilas, whose ruling attacking strategies
can be categorized into four different complementary steps.
2.9.6 Step 1: increased exploration (X)
This stage of the optimization process is based on soaring
high up in the sky and searching for the prey individuals
way above the ground and finding the most favorable prey
among the suitable alternatives. Once the prey is detected,
a smooth vertical dive toward the prey is performed.
Mathematical model of this foraging skill can be expressed
by,
 
iter
X1iterþ1 ¼ Xbest
iter
 1
 iter Maxiter 
iter
þ Xmean  Xbest  rand ð0; 1Þ ð95Þ
iter 1X N
XMean ¼ X iter ; i ¼ 1; 2; ::; N ð96Þ
N i¼1 i
where Xiiterþ1 is the location of the ith foraging aquila for
iter
the next iteration, Xbest is the best solution obtained until
the current iteration, which is the estimated spatial location
of the prey within the D-dimensional search hyperspace,
iter is the current iteration while Maxiter is the maximum
number of iterations defined as the termination criterion,
iter
and Xmean is the mean value of each aquila in the popula-
tion for this current iteration.
2.9.7 Step 2: narrowed exploration (X2)
Second step of the algorithm takes place when the foraging
aquila soars up and detects the prey victims. Following
14297
that, aquilas decide to make spiral circles around the
detected prey and perform rapid attacks. This attacking
strategy is called contour flight with a short glide attack
and,s simulated by the following mathematical equation,
X2iterþ1 ¼ Xbest
iter iter
 LevyðDÞ þ Xrand þ ðy  xÞ  randð0; 1Þ
ð97Þ
where X2iterþ1 is the solution for the next iteration iter,
obtained by the second search strategy (X2); D is the search
dimension of the problem; Levy() is the function that draws
a random number from a levy flight distribution for each
iter
problem dimension j = 1,2,.., D; Xrand is a randomly cho-
sen aquila from the swarm population. Spiral shape of the
attacking movement is expressed by the implementation of
y and x variables into the search scheme, which is calcu-
lated by the following,
y ¼ r  cosðhÞ ð98Þ
y ¼ r  sinðhÞ ð99Þ
where
r ¼ n1 þ 0:00565  l ð100Þ
h ¼ 0:005  l þ 1:5p ð101Þ
The parameter n1 takes a random integer value between
1 and 20; l is an integer number from 1 to the length of the
search space (D).
2.9.8 Step 3: expanded exploitation (X3)
Third foraging skill is based on a vertical landing of the
attacking aquila when it pinpoints the prey location. This
method is called low flight with slow descend attack, which
is found to be very effective in exploiting the fertile regions
previously explored by the skillful foraging aquilas. This
hunting behavior is modeled by the below search scheme
 iter 
X3iterþ1 ¼ 0:1  Xbest iter
 Xmean  rand ð0; 1Þ þ 0:1
 ððUB  LBÞ  rand ð0; 1Þ þ LBÞ ð102Þ
X3iterþ1 is the solution obtained by the third search
iter
strategy for the next iteration, Xbest is the best solution
iter
retained until the current iteration, Xmean is the mean value
of the aquila population individuals, UB and LB are upper
and lower bounds of the search space of the given opti-
mization problem, and rand(0,1) is a uniform random value
between 0 and 1.
2.9.9 Step 4: narrowed exploitation (X4)
This search strategy is activated when the intelligent for-
aging aquila is getting close to the prey and quickly attacks
with using random stochastic movements. This method is
123
14298 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

called walk and grab prey, which is mathematically mod- Eq. (105); G2 represents an iteratively decreasing number
eled by the following expression, from 2 to 0 computed by Eq. (106)
 
X4iterþ1 ¼ QF  Xbest
iter
 G1  X iter  rand ð0; 1Þ  G2 2randð0;1Þ1
QF iter ¼ iter ð1MaxiterÞ2 ð104Þ
 LevyðDÞ þ randð0; 1Þ  G1
ð103Þ G1 ¼ 2  rand ð0; 1Þ  1 ð105Þ
 
iter
where QF is a quality factor calculated by Eq. (104); G1 G2 ¼ 2  1  ð106Þ
represents the various hunting behaviors of aquilas that are Maxiter
utilized for chasing the prey individuals, calculated by Algorithm 9 provides the pseudo-code of the Aquila
Optimization algorithm.

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
2.9.10 Harris Hawks optimizer
Harris Hawks Optimization (HARRIS) is inspired by the
collaborative and cooperative hunting behaviors of Harris
Hawks, which mimics the prey-chasing style of Harris
Hawks in nature called ‘‘surprise pounce’’. This collective
attacking strategy is based on the cooperative blitz of
several hawks over the detected prey individuals from
different directions with a consistent attempt to confuse
them. Harris Hawks facilitate different attacking strategies
and employ novel chasing patterns to collect available prey
victims. This algorithm shows competitive performance in
solving various types of real-world complex engineering
problems in previous literature studies. HARRIS algorithm
has clinical advantages over the majority of its contem-
poraries such that it has a well-devised shifting mechanism
between exploration and exploitation phases.
Exploration phase of the algorithm is activated when
hawk individuals in the population are not able to effec-
tively track the prey. Hawks opt for exploring the search
domain and aim to identify the prey within the prevailing
exploration phase. In the algorithm context, each trial
solution is a hawk in the population, while the best solution
obtained so far is the prey victim, which is striving to be
caught by the foraging hawks. Artificial hawks decide to
perch on a random location within the search domain and
probe around the fertile regions in which prey individuals
reside with the highest probability. Equation (107) simu-
lates this hunting strategy through the below-given search
strategy,
X iterþ1
(  iter 
iter
Xrand  r1 Xrand  2  r2  X iter  r5 \0:5
¼
iter
Xrabbit  iter
Xmean  r3 ðLB þ r4  ðUB  LBÞÞ r5  0.5
ð107Þ
iter
where Xrand is a random hunting hawk in the population;
iter
Xrabbit is the best solution obtained until the iteration iter
standing for the prey rabbit; rj j = 1,..,5 are uniform ran-
dom numbers defined in the range [0,1]; UB and LB are,
respectively, upper and lower bounds of the search space;
iter
Xmean is the mean value of the hawk population for the
current iteration. In above equation, a hunting hawk utilizes
its current location, the projected prey position, and the
mean position of the entire population to approach a new
position when r5 \ 0.5. Meanwhile, when r5 C 0.5, the
foraging hawks tend to prey on random locations between
the predefined search ranges. One of the main advantages
of HARRIS algorithm is the intelligently defined shifting
mechanism, which enables a smooth transition between
exploration and exploitation phases regulated by the
14299
decreasing escaping energy level of the prey rabbits while
eluding the blitzing hawk attacks,
 
iter
E ¼ 2E0 1  ð108Þ
Maxiter
where E is the total energy level of the fleeting prey during
its challenging escape from the consistent hawk attacks
Exploration phase of the algorithm is initiated by the
surprise pounce of the attacking hawks on the projected
prey rabbit, which was previously detected in the explo-
ration phase. As the preys on the radar make desperate
attempts to avoid from dangerous situations, hunting hawks
perform different attacking strategies and chasing methods
to catch prey. These foraging actions are decided by con-
sidering the active escaping behaviors of the fleeting rab-
bits as well as the chasing strategies of the Harris Hawks.
Four different foraging methods are employed in the
exploitation phase, which will be briefly explained below.
In their intrinsic nature, the preys tend to escape from the
threatening hawk attacks during the hunting process.
Assume the r is the escape probability of the prey rabbits
from the surprise pounce attacks. The fleeting rabbit has
two chances during the persistent attacks. It can safely
elude from the inflicting dangerous pounces (r \ 0.5) or
become an unlucky victim of the blitzing attacks. Hawks
perform a hard or soft besiege depending on the current
escaping energy level of the prey. A random switch
between these two complementary foraging skills of hard
and soft besiege is decided by the current escaping energy
level such that when jEj  0:5 soft besiege proceeds, and
when jEj\0:5 hard besiege occurs.
Soft besiege takes place when jEj  0:5 and r  0:5
indicating that the prey rabbit has enough energy to escape
from the attacks by performing random jumps or mis-
leading movements yet fails at the end. Foraging hawks
makes circles around the prey with soft moves, which is
modeled by,
 iter   
X iterþ1 ¼ Xrabbit  X iter  E  J  Xrabiit
iter
 X iter  ð109Þ
where J is the jumping strength of the prey rabbit repre-
senting its jumping ability throughout hunting process,
which is of calculated by J = 2(1-rand(0,1)).
Hard besiege attack occurs when jEj\0:5 and r  0:5,
in conditions where the prey is overly exhausted and has
lower escaping energy. Additionally, hawks hardly sur-
round the prey rabbits to perform the surprising pounce
attacks. This encircling mechanism covering the current
situation of the foraging hawks can be modeled by the
following,
 iter 
X iterþ1 ¼ Xrabbit
iter
 E  Xrabbit  X iter  ð110Þ
123
14300 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

produces D-dimensional vector composed of randomly

Soft besiege with progressive rapid dives attacking
generated numbers
move takes place when jEj  0:5 and r\0:5 where the prey
Solution update mechanism associated with the soft
individual still has enough energy to escape from the hawk
besiege phase can be simulated by taking into account the
attacks. In order to confuse the fleeting preys, hawks per-
above-mentioned assumptions through the following
form surprising zig-zag moves around the prey rabbit with
expression,
several spiral dives before the final pounce attack. In the (  
first step of this attacking mechanism, hawks try to iterþ1
V if funcðYÞ\func X iter
approach toward the prey rabbits by employing the below X ¼   ð113Þ
Z if funcðZÞ\func X iter
equation,
  Hard besiege with progressive rapid dives foraging
V ¼ X iter  E  J  X iter  X iter 
rabbit rabbit ð111Þ
mechanism is about to occur when jEj\0:5 and r\0:5 and
A conclusive comparison is made between the possible prey does not have enough energy to escape from the
outcome of the current flight with that of the previous flight surprise attacks. In this phase, Harris Hawks make persis-
to get insight on if it is reasonable to dive or not. If it does tent attempts to decrease distance with the prey rabbit and
not makes sense to dive, foraging hawks perform rapid and aim to get closer to them with performing rapid dives
irregularly shaped dives to confuse the prey rabbits based before the pounce attacks. Attack movements of the hawks
on the levy flight concept through the flowing expression, in the case of the hard besiege phase can be formulated by
  the following expression,
Z ¼ X iter  E  J  X iter  X iter  þ rand ð1 : DÞ
rabbit rabbit (  
 LevyðDÞ iterþ1
V2 if funcðY2 Þ\func X iter
X ¼   ð114Þ
ð112Þ Z2 if funcðZ2 Þ\func X iter
where Levy(D) is a D-dimensional vector including random where
number generated by the levy flight distribution; rand(1:D)

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
 
iter
V2 ¼ Xrabbit  E  J  Xrabbit
iter iter 
 Xmean ð115Þ
 
iter
Z2 ¼ Xrabbit  E  J  Xrabbit
iter iter 
 Xmean þ rand ð1 : DÞ
 LevyðDÞ
ð116Þ
A simple pseudo-code of the Harris Hawks optimization
algorithm is provided below.
2.9.11 Barnacles mating optimizer
Barnacles Mating Optimization algorithm (BARNA)
mimics the characteristic mating principles of barnacles
living in their natural habitat. Barnacles are hermaphroditic
microorganisms, which means that they have both male
and female reproduction organs. One famous physical
feature of the barnacles is that they have a large penis size
relative to their body, which is seven or eight times larger
than their total body length, to cope with challenging
environmental conditions with varying level of difficulty.
Mating group of a barnacle consists of all neighboring
individuals within the reach of its penis size. Variations in
the penis length have a significant influence on the deter-
mining the optimal group size. The basic principles of
Hardy and Weinberg are utilized for generating new off-
spring in the Barnacles Mating Optimization algorithm,
whose elementary steps are defined sequentially in the
following paragraphs.
Initial population of the barnacles individuals is pro-
duced by,
 
Xi;j ¼ LBj þ randð0; 1Þ  UBj  LBj ;
ð117Þ
i ¼ 1; 2; :::; N; j¼ 1; 2;:::;D
where Xi,j is the jth dimension of the ith barnacle in the
population, N is the population size, D is the problem
dimension rand(0,1) is a random number within the range
[0,1], and UBj and LBj, respectively, stand for the jth
dimension of the upper and lower search limits. The choice
of the barnacles to be mated is decided by the length of the
penis size, pl. Selection of candidate barnacles for repro-
duction is based on some assumptions listed below.
• Penis length is the most important factor in selecting
random barnacles for reproduction.
• A barnacle in the population is limited in its reproduc-
tion, with only one barnacle within each generation
14301
since it receives its sperm from only another barnacle,
not from itself.
• If the same barnacle is considered for the mating
procedure at a certain point, the algorithm disregard this
individual, and iterations proceed without employing
the reproduction process.
• Sperm cast process occurs if the selection for the
current iteration is larger than the penis size pl.
Exploration phase of the algorithm is commenced with
the reproduction through the sperm cast process, which is
formulated,
xD
barna ¼ randpermðXÞ ð118Þ
xM
barna ¼ randpermðXÞ ð119Þ
where BarnaD and Barnam are randomly selected parents to
be mated; and randperm() randomly shuffles the row ele-
ments of the main population matrix X to generate the trial
population of the mated parents.
Search equations proposed for modeling the reproduc-
tion phase of BARNA algorithm are quite different com-
pared to other literature evolutionary optimization
algorithms. As there is no specific mathematical model to
be employed for the reproduction of offspring, BARNA
algorithm emphasizes on the inheritance characteristics of
the parents in generating new offspring individuals, taking
into account of the fundamentals of the Hardy–Weinberg
principle. To put it simply, the following proposed search
scheme is used to produce new offspring members result-
ing from the mating parents,
xnew ¼ p  xD M
barna þ q  xbarna ð120Þ
where p is a random number between 0 and 1 drawn from
uniform distribution, xD M
barna and xbarna are, respectively, dad
and mum of the generated barnacles. Exploitation phase is
simulated by sperm cast process, which happens when the
selected barnacle’s choice exceeds the penis length, which
is a predetermined algorithm parameter assigned to a cer-
tain value before the iterative process is commenced.
Offspring generation through sperm cast can be modeled
by the following,
xnew ¼ rand ð0; 1Þ  xM ð121Þ
barna
Pseudo-code of the Barnacles Mating Optimizer is
provided in the below algorithm.
123
14302
3 Main motivation for the current study
This section aims to provide essential insights on why the
current research study is performed and what future
directions are served to the existing literature, resulting
from the outcomes of the numerical experiments made on
the considered test subjects. It also demonstrates some of
the key advantages and disadvantages of the compared
algorithms in terms of solution efficiency and accuracy.
The recent surge in the rapid development and imple-
mentation of the nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithms
within the last five years is the main motivation behind this
research study as their comparative performances covering
a broad range of problem domain have not been elaborately
investigated, which not only impedes the spread of the
general knowledge among the community on the utmost
capabilities of these proposed optimization methods but
also gives limited ideas or insights on their optimization
accuracies for problems in which variety of dimensional of
functional complexities occur. Since numerical investiga-
tions as to the estimation performances of the proposed
algorithms are made on a restricted range of benchmark
problems and established on their own experimental con-
ditions, there is no evidential literature approach unfolding
the true optimization capabilities of these algorithms.
Relying on the postulates of the No Free Lunch (NFL)
theorem [20], indicating that there is not a single available
metaheuristic algorithm to be able to solve all optimization
123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
problems of varying types and functional characteristics.
Researchers seek to find alternative ways to conquer the
challenging outcomes of the NFL theorem, such as
hybridizing two complementary metaheuristic algorithms
[88], implementing chaotic sequences into the base algo-
rithm rather than using uniformly generated random num-
bers [89] or introducing the fundamentals of reinforcement
learning concepts into metaheuristic algorithms [90]. They
have also developed novel metaheuristic algorithms uti-
lizing innovative nature-inspired search schemes, which
entail a considerable amount of improvement on accurate
solutions for complex and large-scale benchmark problems
compared to existing literature stochastic optimizers.
Therefore, due to the lack of knowledge on the general
performances of the recently proposed nature-inspired
optimizers, this research study aims to explore the inherent
pros and cons of eleven selected algorithms, including
RUNGE, GRAD, PRO, REPTILE, SNAKE, EQUIL,
MANTA, AFRICAN, AQUILA, HARRIS, and BARNA
optimizers over a wide range of optimization problems.
Despite their recent emergence, these methods have been
applied to many engineering design cases covering a
diverse set of scientific fields. Table 1 reports the inspira-
tional sources of these mentioned algorithms and lists some
of their major contributions to the existing literature
approaches. Particularly for HARRIS and EQUIL algo-
rithms, there are plenty of engineering applications avail-
able in the existing accumulated literature small portion of
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14303

Table 1 Some early applications of the compared algorithms

Algorithm Inspiration Some literature applications

Runge Kutta Mathematical foundations of Runge–Kutta differential Parameter identification of photovoltaic models [93]
optimization equation solver Multi-hydropower reservoir optimization [94]
(RUNGE)
Gradient-based Newton’s famous gradient-based search method Multi-objective optimization of real-world structural design
Optimizer (GRAD) optimization problems [95]
Parameter estimation of PEM models [45]
Poor and rich Desire to improve the current wealth levels of the poor Feature selection for text classification [96]
optimization (PRO) and rich people in a community Classification of similar documents [46]
Reptile search Foraging behaviors of crocodiles Power systems engineering design [97]
algorithm Selecting the important subsets for churn prediction [98]
(REPTILE)
Snake optimizer Reproduction and hunting behaviors of snakes Avoiding cascading failures through a transmission expansion
(SNAKE) planning model [99]
Equilibrium optimizer Mathematical models to determine the equilibrium Feature selection [100]
(EQUIL) states of non-reacting particles in a control volume Optimal operation of hybrid AC/DC grids [101]
Manta ray foraging Hunting behaviors of manta rays Economic dispatch problems [102]
optimizer Global optimization and image segmentation [103]
(MANTA)
Optimal power flow problem [104]
African vultures Hunting styles of African vultures Shell-and-tube heat exchanger design [105]
optimization Tuning PI controllers for hybrid renewable energy systems
(AFRICAN) [106]
Parameter estimation of three diode solar photovoltaic models
[107]
Aquila optimization Foraging behaviors of intelligent aquilas Optimizing ANFIS model parameters for oil production
(AQUILA) forecasting [108]
Gene selection in cancer classification [109]
Optimal distribution of the generated energy across the grid
network [110]
Harris Hawks Foraging behaviors of Harris Hawks Optimal selection of the most significant chemical descriptors
Optimization and chemical compound activities for drug design [111]
(HARRIS) Optimal design of microchannel heat sinks [112]
Roller bearing design [113]
Barnacles mating Mating behaviors of barnacles Control of a Pendulum System [114]
optimizer (BARNA) Optimal chiller loading [115]
Training radial basis function neural network for parameter
estimation of induction motors [116]

which is reported in Table 1. Although their implementa-
tion into a well-organized computer code is a bit strict and
challenging compared to other algorithms, their wide range
utilization covering different fields of engineering domain
is noticed and recognized by the researchers of the opti-
mization community.
It is worth to emphasizing the actual fact that there is no
clear evidential data or reassuring experimental findings on
the true optimization performances of these algorithms
since each representative research study associated with
evaluating its prediction ability is accomplished with its
own methodology and experimental conditions. Therefore,
there is no given or provided common ground for
discussing the weakness and strengths of these algorithms,
and all decisive inferences regarding their inherent merits
are based on a limited number of numerical tests dealing
with a particular design case or solving a suite of specific
unconstrained benchmark functions without ever men-
tioning the effects of the ‘‘curse of the dimensionality’’ in
most of the comparative cases. One interesting point that
should be put emphasis on that most of the new emerging
metaheuristic algorithms do not have tunable algorithm
parameters employed on the responsible search equations,
which results in a significant improvement on the overall
prediction accuracies of these algorithms and entails a

123
14304 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

Table 2 Multimodal and unimodal test functions considered for benchmarking the optimization accuracies of the compared algorithms
Name Type Range Dimension(D) Opt. point

f1 Ackley function C.D.Nsep.M [- 35.35]D 30.500.1000 0.0

f2 Rastrigin function C.D.Sep.M [- 5.12.5.12]D 30.500.1000 0.0
f3 Griewank function C.D.Nsep.M [- 100.100]D 30.500.1000 0.0
D
f4 Zakharov function C.D.Nsep.M [- 5.10] 30.500.1000 0.0
f5 Salomon function C.D.Nsep.M [- 100.100]D 30.500.1000 0.0
f6 Alpine function C.ND.Sep.M [- 10.10]D 30.500.1000 0.0
f7 Csendes function C.D.Sep.M [- 1.1]D 30.500.1000 0.0
f8 Schaffer function C.D.Nsep.M [- 100.100]D 30.500.1000 0.0
f9 Xin She Yang 2 function DC.ND.Nsep.M [- 10.10]D 30.500.1000 0.0
D
f10 Inverted Cosine Mixture function Nsep. M [- 10.10] 30.500.1000 0.0
f11 Wavy function C.D.Sep.M [- p. p]D 30.500.1000 0.0
f12 Xin She Yang 3 function DC.ND.Nsep.M [- 2p. 2p]D 30.500.1000 0.0
f13 Xin She Yang 4 function DC.ND.Nsep.M [- 10.10]D 30.500.1000 - 1.0
f14 Penalized1 function M [- 50.50]D 30.500.1000 0.0
f15 Pathological function C.D.Nsep.M [- 100.100]D 30.500.1000 0.0
f16 Quintic function C.D.Sep.M [- 10.10]D 30.500.1000 0.0
f17 Qing function C.D.Sep.M [- 500.500]D 30.500.1000 0.0
f18 Levy function Nsep.M [- 10.10]D 30.500.1000 0.0
f19 Sphere function C.D.U [0.10]D 30.500.1000 0.0
D
f20 Brown function C.D.Nsep.U [- 1.4] 30.500.1000 0.0
f21 Sum of different powers function C.D.U [- 1.1]D 30.500.1000 0.0
f22 Bent cigar function C.D.U [- 100.100]D 30.500.1000 0.0
f23 Sum of squares function C.D.U [- 5.12.5.12]D 30.500.1000 0.0
f24 Dropwave function C.D.U [- 5.12.5.12]D 30.500.1000 - 1.0
f25 Rosenbrock function C.D.Nsep.U [- 30. - 30]D 30.500.1000 0.0
f26 Discus function C.D.U [- 100.100]D 30.500.1000 0.0
f27 Dixon – Price function C.D.Nsep.U [- 10.10]D 30.500.1000 0.0
f28 Trid function C.D.Nsep.U [- 10.10]D 30.500.1000 - D(D ? 4)(D - 1)/6
f29 Schwefel 2.21 function C.ND.Sep.U [- 100.100]D 30.500.1000 0.0
f30 Schwefel 2.23 function C.ND.Nsep.U [- 10.10]D 30.500.1000 0.0
D
f31 Schwefel 2.25 function C.D.Sep.U [0.10] 30.500.1000 0.0
f32 Schwefel 2.20 function C.ND.Sep.U [- 100.100]D 30.500.1000 0.0
f33 Stretched Sine Wave function C.D.Nsep.U [-100.100]D 30.500.1000 0.0
f34 Powell function C.D.Nsep.U [-4.5]D 30.500.1000 0.0
C Continuous, DC Discontinuous, D Differentiable, ND Non-differentiable, Sep Separable, Nsep Non-separable, M Multimodal, U Unimodal

quick and robust convergence as it avoids time-consuming
and tiresome iterative parameter adjustment process.
4 Experimental methodology
This section presents the comparative investigation of the
eleven above-mentioned emerging metaheuristic algo-
rithms, taking into account of different benchmark suites.
Comparative algorithms are firstly evaluated on thirty-four
scalable unconstrained optimization test functions
composed of unimodal and multimodal test functions, and
respective predictive results are comparatively analyzed.
These test functions have been commonly used by
researchers as convenient test beds for evaluating the per-
formance of their proposed algorithms. Functional char-
acteristics, problem dimensionalities, search ranges, and
global optimum points of each employed test functions are
correspondingly reported in Table 2. Unimodal test func-
tions characteristically have no local optimum but only a
global optimum point, whereas multimodal test functions
locate many local optimum points within their defined

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14305

Table 3 Description of CEC

No. Functionsf*(x)
2013 benchmark functions
1 Sphere function - 1400
Unimodal 2 Rotated High Conditioned Elliptic function - 1300
Functions 3 Rotated Bent Cigar function - 1200
4 Rotated Discus function - 1100
5 Different Powers function - 1000
6 Rotated Rosenbrock function - 900
7 Rotated Schaffers F7 function - 800
8 Rotated Ackley function - 700
9 Rotated Weirstrass function - 600
10 Rotated Griewank function - 500
11 Rastrigin function - 400
Basic 12 Rotated Rastrigin function - 300
Multimodal 13 Non - Continuous rotated Rastrigin function - 200
Functions 14 Schwefel function - 100
15 Rotated Schwefel function 100
16 Rotated Katsuura function 200
17 Lunacek Bi Rastrigin function 300
18 Rotated Lunacek Bi Rastrigin function 400
19 Expanded Griewank plus Rosenbrock function 500
20 Expanded Schaffer F6 function 600
21 Composition function 1 (n = 5. Rotated) 700
22 Composition function 2 (n = 3. Unrotated) 800
Composition 23 Composition function 3 (n = 3. Rotated) 900
Functions 24 Composition function 4 (n = 3. Rotated) 1000
25 Composition function 5 (n = 3. Rotated) 1100
26 Composition function 6 (n = 5. Rotated) 1200
27 Composition function 7 (n = 5. Rotated) 1300
28 Composition function 8 (n = 5. Rotated) 1400
Search range: [- 100.100]D

search ranges. Unimodal test functions are efficient
benchmark samples for assessing the exploitation perfor-
mances of the algorithms, while multimodal test functions
are prolific instruments for evaluating the exploration
capabilities of the employed algorithm. These thirty-four
benchmark functions comprised of unimodal and multi-
modal problems with varying dimensionalities of 30, 500,
and 1000D are considered for the overall performance
evaluation of the compared algorithms. There are many
alternative benchmark cases in the existing literature. Some
of them are given below in their corresponding references
[91, 92]. However, the main advantages of using these
artificially produced problems are their common and fre-
quent applications in benchmarking the optimization
effectivity of the developed algorithm in literature
approaches, which makes them reliable test alternatives not
only for their widespread utilization on various types of
metaheuristics but also establishing a credible environment
for assessing the search tendencies of the algorithms.
Convergence success of these twelve algorithms is inves-
tigated and comparatively discussed based on the opti-
mization results of these thirty-four optimization test
functions. Following that, the scalabilities of these algo-
rithms are evaluated on their respective results of 500D and
1000D unimodal and multimodal test functions. Compu-
tational runtimes of each algorithm for each test function
are compared for 2000 function evaluations and a decisive
conclusion is drawn as to which algorithm burdens the
minimum computational load to the processors. Second
phase of the comparative investigation between algorithms
is based on the optimization results of the continuous
benchmark functions from the 2013 IEEE Congress on

123
14306 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

Table 4 Parameter settings of

Algorithm Parameters
each competitive algorithm
RUNGE No tunable algorithm parameters involved
GRAD No tunable algorithm parameters involved
PRO No tunable algorithm parameters involved
REPTILE Epsilon parameter used to avoid of division by zero error e = 10–10
Parameters for controlling the exploration accuracy of the algorithm a = 0.1 – b = 0.1
SNAKE Algorithm constant – c1 = 0.5
Algorithm constant – c2 = 0.05
Algorithm constant – c3 = 2.0
EQUIL Parameter controlling the exploration capacity of algorithm a1 = 2.0
Parameter controlling the exploitation capacity of algorithm a2 = 1.0
Parameter balancing the exploration and exploitation capacity of the algorithm – GP = 0.5
MANTA Somersault factor S = 2
AFRICAN No tunable algorithm parameters involved
AQUILA Random algorithm parameter—r1 2 ½1; 20. Random algorithm parameter—D1 2 ½1; D
Algorithm constant – U = 0.00565. Algorithm constant – x = 0.005
HARRIS No tunable algorithm parameters involved
BARNA No tunable algorithm parameters involved

Evolutionary Computation [117]. These functions are
briefly summarized in Table 3. Evolution of the design
variables to their optimal solutions is iteratively plotted in
the convergence curves, each of which is constructed for
each 28 test instances of CEC 2013 benchmark problems
for eleven compared metaheuristic algorithms. For stan-
dard continuous rest functions composed of thirty-four
unimodal and multimodal problems, total number of 1000
function evaluations have been performed for 30 inde-
pendent algorithm runs due to the stochastic natures of the
algorithms. Statistical analysis has been performed on the
obtained set of solutions, and predication accuracies of the
algorithms have been asses in terms of best mean, worst,
and standard deviation results of the consecutive runs.
Compared metaheuristic algorithms are developed on
MATLAB environment and run on a desktop computer
with Intel Core i5-8300H CPU @ 2.30 GHz with having
8.0 GB RAM. Parameter settings of the algorithms are
given in Table 4 and remain constant during the course of
iterations. Previous cumulative experiences of the authors,
along with the insightful recommendations of the algorithm
developers in their respective original articles concerning
the accurate values of algorithm constants, play an
important role during the exhaustive parameter setting
process. Next section provides an extensive and conducive
discussion on the optimization results of standard scalable
test functions.
4.1 Comprehensive analysis on exploration
performance of the algorithms
The exploration abilities of the eleven mentioned meta-
heuristic optimizers are evaluated through multimodal test
functions, which are challenging benchmark problems (f1–
f18) defined in Table 2. These test functions include a
multitude number of local optimum points located in the
search space, and the inherent complexities of these func-
tions dramatically increase with increasing problem
dimensionalities. Therefore, they are efficient test beds for
evaluating the local minimum avoidance of optimization
algorithms. Tables 5 and 6 report the predictions of these
twelve compared metaheuristic algorithms for 30-dimen-
sional multimodal benchmark functions.
REPTILE algorithm provides the best predictions for 13
out of 18 multimodal test functions and becomes one of the
trailblazing algorithms between the competitive optimizers.
MANTA algorithm obtains the best results for f1, f2, f3, f8,
f11, f13, and f16 test functions and becomes one of the
successful algorithms regarding the overall estimation
performances. AFRICAN algorithm obtains the best results
for f1, f2, f3, f8, f11, f13, and f15 test functions. AQUILA
algorithm is another effective method for acquiring the
most accurate predictions for f2, f3, f8, f11, f13, f14, f15, and
f16. Table 7 reports the ranking points of the algorithms
according to their best prediction results for 30 D multi-
modal test functions, in which the best-performing algo-
rithm obtains a ranking point of 1 while the worst method’s
ranking point is 11. It is seen that despite the dominating
performance of REPTILE algorithm with reaching the
global optimum points of twelve multimodal 30D test

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14307

Table 5 Statistical results of the compared algorithms for test problems between f1—Ackley and f8—Schaffer
f1- Ackley f2- Rastrigin
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 8.88E-16 3.66E-10 1.83E-09 1.00E-08 0.00E?00 3.79E-15 2.08E-14 1.14E-13

AQUILA 1.23E-11 1.11E-06 5.78E-06 3.17E-05 0.00E?00 2.45E-10 1.06E-09 5.75E-09
BARNA 1.15E-14 3.59E-09 1.57E-08 8.61E-08 0.00E?00 3.41E-14 1.87E-13 1.02E-12
EQUIL 2.22E-01 4.74E-01 2.12E-01 1.13E?00 4.01E?01 7.97E?01 2.33E?01 1.33E?02
GRAD 8.88E-16 4.45E-14 9.30E-14 4.56E-13 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
HARRIS 8.43E-11 2.57E-07 8.23E-07 4.49E-06 0.00E?00 1.29E-10 4.00E-10 2.09E-09
MANTA 8.88E-16 8.88E-16 0.00E?00 8.88E-16 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
PRO 8.88E-16 8.88E-16 0.00E?00 8.88E-16 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
REPTILE 8.88E-16 8.88E-16 0.00E?00 8.88E-16 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
RUNGE 5.05E-09 1.18E-06 1.41E-06 5.66E-06 5.68E-14 1.01E-07 4.68E-07 2.56E-06
SNAKE 5.21E-04 4.97E-01 5.97E-01 2.29E?00 1.78E?00 5.84E?01 6.76E?01 2.54E?02

f3 - Griewank f4 - Zakharov
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 0.00E?00 7.77E-17 4.26E-16 2.33E-15 2.62E-29 2.57E?01 7.21E?01 3.09E?02

AQUILA 0.00E?00 1.40E-14 4.82E-14 2.07E-13 2.19E-17 2.29E-01 5.97E-01 2.66E?00
BARNA 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 3.77E-34 3.20E-16 1.27E-15 6.69E-15
EQUIL 2.39E-03 1.62E-02 2.90E-02 1.55E-01 9.07E?01 2.07E?02 6.99E?01 3.96E?02
GRAD 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 2.21E-25 1.85E-16 9.70E-16 5.32E-15
HARRIS 0.00E?00 1.23E-13 6.01E-13 3.30E-12 3.80E-13 1.58E?02 2.70E?02 9.18E?02
MANTA 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 7.64E-43 5.21E-33 2.37E-32 1.29E-31
PRO 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 7.49E-67 2.27E-59 6.24E-59 2.44E-58
REPTILE 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 2.10E-32 8.91E-32 4.69E-31
RUNGE 0.00E?00 3.54E-13 1.02E-12 4.76E-12 3.91E-04 9.96E-01 2.36E?00 1.04E?01
SNAKE 4.68E-08 8.40E-04 1.95E-03 8.35E-03 8.16E-08 1.37E-02 4.55E-02 2.45E-01

f5 - Salomon f6 - Alpine
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 5.57E-20 2.36E-04 1.28E-03 7.02E-03 7.39E-18 9.60E-10 4.86E-09 2.67E-08

AQUILA 1.25E-11 1.64E-03 6.04E-03 3.13E-02 4.24E-11 4.25E-04 1.38E-03 7.07E-03
BARNA 2.89E-15 4.11E-10 1.20E-09 5.98E-09 2.69E-16 7.78E-10 3.34E-09 1.81E-08
EQUIL 4.00E-01 5.83E-01 1.05E-01 9.00E-01 1.19E-01 3.74E-01 4.20E-01 2.35E?00
GRAD 3.46E-11 1.67E-02 3.79E-02 9.99E-02 3.37E-18 7.45E-09 4.08E-08 2.23E-07
HARRIS 1.07E-10 3.32E-05 1.76E-04 9.65E-04 2.29E-11 1.68E-07 3.89E-07 1.98E-06
MANTA 1.31E-22 1.14E-05 6.24E-05 3.42E-04 9.00E-24 1.20E-18 3.19E-18 1.35E-17
PRO 1.79E-34 2.09E-27 7.01E-27 3.36E-26 7.65E-35 3.63E-31 7.33E-31 3.51E-30
REPTILE 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
RUNGE 9.99E-02 9.99E-02 5.52E-10 9.99E-02 3.69E-09 8.38E-07 2.26E-06 1.19E-05
SNAKE 5.54E-02 1.58E-01 7.86E-02 4.00E-01 3.24E-04 2.97E-01 1.19E?00 6.53E?00

f7 - Csendes f8 - Schaffer
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 1.15E-128 4.44E-55 1.74E-54 8.37E-54 0.00E?00 2.09E-12 1.14E-11 6.24E-11

AQUILA 6.47E-70 4.31E-44 2.28E-43 1.25E-42 0.00E?00 1.21E-12 4.20E-12 2.05E-11
BARNA 4.55E-84 3.64E-45 1.95E-44 1.07E-43 0.00E?00 8.25E-16 3.30E-15 1.75E-14
EQUIL 3.87E-04 3.86E-02 6.72E-02 2.87E-01 3.89E?00 5.87E?00 9.87E-01 7.29E?00
GRAD 5.16E-96 8.68E-77 4.66E-76 2.55E-75 0.00E?00 2.15E-12 8.98E-12 4.64E-11
HARRIS 1.14E-59 4.34E-34 2.38E-33 1.30E-32 0.00E?00 2.38E-07 1.30E-06 7.15E-06
MANTA 1.14E-143 2.95E-106 9.18E-106 4.29E-105 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
PRO 9.52E-210 4.50E-174 0.00E?00 1.35E-172 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
REPTILE 0.00E?00 1.27E-289 0.00E?00 3.80E-288 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
RUNGE 5.24E-44 4.27E-23 2.12E-22 1.16E-21 2.02E-03 2.80E?00 1.68E?00 7.26E?00
SNAKE 7.95E-21 2.56E-08 1.20E-07 6.56E-07 5.99E-03 4.39E-01 4.68E-01 1.82E?00

123
14308 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

Table 6 Comparison of twelve optimization algorithms on multimodal test functions from f9-Yang2 to f18—Levy
Problem f9- Yang2 f10-inverted cosine mixture
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 3.67E-12 3.12E-09 1.41E-08 7.72E-08 3.49E-33 7.55E-16 4.12E-15 2.26E-14

AQUILA 3.51E-12 3.52E-12 1.20E-14 3.55E-12 6.90E-22 1.59E-10 8.43E-10 4.62E-09
BARNA 6.00E-13 5.00E-06 6.90E-06 2.56E-05 6.48E-30 1.41E-12 7.73E-12 4.23E-11
EQUIL 1.27E-09 1.12E-06 3.89E-06 2.14E-05 6.48E-01 1.61E?00 4.80E-01 2.46E?00
GRAD 3.52E-12 4.64E-12 2.83E-12 1.67E-11 4.21E-32 1.80E-26 5.56E-26 2.90E-25
HARRIS 3.52E-12 6.17E-08 2.42E-07 1.18E-06 5.32E-20 1.20E-11 4.80E-11 2.61E-10
MANTA 6.12E-11 2.05E-09 3.23E-09 1.47E-08 7.11E-45 3.03E-34 1.62E-33 8.89E-33
PRO 2.86E-08 5.61E-06 1.14E-05 5.59E-05 1.45E-69 1.18E-59 3.25E-59 1.65E-58
REPTILE 9.92E-10 3.74E-07 1.26E-06 6.74E-06 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
RUNGE 1.58E-10 2.81E-08 1.20E-07 6.59E-07 1.47E-18 2.58E-10 9.70E-10 5.12E-09
SNAKE 3.51E-12 7.04E-09 3.85E-08 2.11E-07 3.32E-04 1.74E-01 3.65E-01 1.47E?00
f11- Wavy f12- Yang3
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 0.00E?00 1.31E-12 7.16E-12 3.92E-11 1.05E-23 6.67E-13 2.00E-12 8.00E-12

AQUILA 0.00E?00 5.82E-11 2.80E-10 1.53E-09 7.19E-09 1.97E-04 4.84E-04 1.80E-03
BARNA 0.00E?00 2.46E-15 1.28E-14 7.01E-14 6.02E-19 4.93E-12 1.61E-11 6.74E-11
EQUIL 6.23E-01 7.05E-01 4.36E-02 7.89E-01 1.10E-04 5.43E-02 5.96E-02 2.32E-01
GRAD 0.00E?00 1.16E-14 6.37E-14 3.49E-13 4.51E-18 2.15E-10 8.80E-10 4.80E-09
HARRIS 0.00E?00 3.75E-10 1.96E-09 1.07E-08 6.44E-14 7.51E-08 1.96E-07 9.86E-07
MANTA 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 7.78E-24 1.12E-14 4.89E-14 2.61E-13
PRO 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 3.12E-35 9.78E-27 5.26E-26 2.88E-25
REPTILE 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
RUNGE 3.80E-10 1.60E-03 6.36E-03 3.18E-02 5.60E-19 1.74E-12 8.30E-12 4.54E-11
SNAKE 4.96E-05 3.91E-01 3.18E-01 8.86E-01 1.63E-06 1.99E-03 3.55E-03 1.67E-02

f13 - Yang4 f14 - Penalized1

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN - 1.00E?00 - 9.98E-01 5.02E-03 - 9.79E-01 3.57E-05 6.86E-03 8.19E-03 3.15E-02

AQUILA - 1.00E?00 - 9.86E-01 5.27E-02 - 7.36E-01 7.02E-08 2.99E-05 4.71E-05 1.82E-04
BARNA - 1.00E?00 - 1.00E?00 3.77E-07 - 1.00E?00 4.97E-01 7.76E-01 1.64E-01 1.23E?00
EQUIL 1.46E-12 3.12E-12 1.14E-12 5.99E-12 5.62E-02 1.36E-01 6.96E-02 3.78E-01
GRAD - 1.00E?00 - 9.63E-01 1.71E-01 - 8.05E-02 9.09E-06 2.96E-04 5.01E-04 2.25E-03
HARRIS - 1.00E?00 - 1.00E?00 1.06E-05 - 1.00E?00 1.04E-05 1.89E-03 4.44E-03 2.44E-02
MANTA - 1.00E?00 - 1.00E?00 1.59E-05 - 1.00E?00 1.93E-02 6.10E-02 2.59E-02 1.28E-01
PRO - 1.00E?00 - 1.00E?00 0.00E?00 - 1.00E?00 1.07E?00 1.46E?00 1.88E-01 1.67E?00
REPTILE - 1.00E?00 - 9.96E-01 2.13E-02 - 8.83E-01 4.05E-02 3.24E-01 1.90E-01 7.70E-01
RUNGE 1.16E-13 5.63E-13 2.82E-13 1.26E-12 2.34E-03 5.36E-03 2.50E-03 1.11E-02
SNAKE - 9.62E-01 - 2.18E-01 3.08E-01 1.89E-12 3.77E-05 3.99E-02 8.88E-02 4.56E-01

f15- Path f16- Quintic

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 0.00E?00 5.71E-01 1.85E?00 8.16E?00 1.17E?00 1.43E?01 1.15E?01 4.79E?01

AQUILA 0.00E?00 7.36E-04 1.21E-03 3.91E-03 3.44E-02 6.24E-01 5.94E-01 2.55E?00
BARNA 0.00E?00 1.03E-07 5.60E-07 3.07E-06 7.34E?01 8.63E?01 5.95E?00 9.79E?01
EQUIL 7.13E?00 9.22E?00 8.48E-01 1.06E?01 4.77E?01 6.37E?01 1.21E?01 9.32E?01
GRAD 5.33E-13 1.71E?00 3.47E?00 9.85E?00 1.78E-01 3.08E?00 2.84E?00 9.84E?00

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14309

Table 6 (continued)
f15- Path f16- Quintic
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

HARRIS 1.22E-15 1.39E?00 3.16E?00 9.10E?00 1.99E-01 4.61E?00 3.29E?00 1.25E?01

MANTA 0.00E?00 2.00E?00 3.80E?00 1.03E?01 1.82E?01 3.21E?01 5.77E?00 4.36E?01
PRO 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 8.58E?01 1.06E?02 8.95E?00 1.18E?02
REPTILE 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 4.00E?01 7.38E?01 2.78E?01 1.18E?02
RUNGE 5.20E?00 8.16E?00 1.23E?00 1.01E?01 1.40E?01 2.13E?01 3.96E?00 2.99E?01
SNAKE 7.18E-07 1.78E-01 6.60E-01 3.62E?00 7.75E-01 2.64E?01 2.78E?01 9.96E?01

f17- Qing f18—Levy

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 3.99E?02 1.11E?03 4.76E?02 1.95E?03 9.01E-04 4.37E-02 9.41E-02 4.70E-01

AQUILA 1.25E?03 2.44E?03 7.49E?02 4.58E?03 4.03E-05 1.03E-02 2.16E-02 1.14E-01
BARNA 3.19E?03 4.42E?03 6.74E?02 5.47E?03 4.96E?00 6.29E?00 7.08E-01 7.88E?00
EQUIL 6.24E?02 1.27E?03 3.99E?02 2.28E?03 4.48E-01 1.18E?00 4.31E-01 1.97E?00
GRAD 1.26E?03 1.84E?03 2.49E?02 2.35E?03 2.60E-06 1.08E-03 1.43E-03 6.17E-03
HARRISREAL 8.26E?02 1.48E?03 2.58E?02 1.90E?03 3.39E-05 4.93E-03 6.94E-03 2.45E-02
MANTA 2.61E?02 7.44E?02 2.68E?02 1.28E?03 1.58E-01 5.10E-01 1.77E-01 9.01E-01
PRO 2.82E?03 4.80E?03 9.54E?02 7.17E?03 6.01E?00 1.02E?01 1.39E?00 1.14E?01
REPTILE 2.82E?03 3.83E?03 5.38E?02 5.18E?03 8.71E?00 1.01E?01 7.71E-01 1.14E?01
RUNGE 8.26E?01 5.23E?02 2.97E?02 1.06E?03 6.99E-03 2.89E-02 1.90E-02 8.22E-02
SNAKE 1.86E?03 2.29E?03 3.19E?02 3.71E?03 2.06E-04 5.27E-01 9.03E-01 3.80E?00

functions and becoming the leading algorithm for these
cases, the prediction accuracies obtained for the remaining
multimodal benchmark functions by this algorithm are so
erroneous and deceptive which puts this optimizer in the
third place in terms of overall best estimation as observed
in Table 7. In this context, MANTA algorithm becomes the
best performer with a ranking point of 3.05, followed by
AFRICAN algorithm with a respective ranking point of
3.11. Among them, EQUIL algorithm yields the worst
estimations with the corresponding ranking point value of
10.16. Table 8 evaluates these competitive metaheuristic
algorithms with respect to their ranking points obtained for
their mean fitness values. Taking into account of mean
deviation rates, it is observed that best-performing methods
are, respectively, MANTA, REPTILE, and PRO algo-
rithms, which are sorted based on their order of prediction
success. EQUIL algorithm has the worst mean results for
30D multimodal problems. According to the descriptive
statistical results obtained for 30D multimodal optimiza-
tion benchmark problems, which include best, mean,
standard deviation, and worst solutions found by the
compared metaheuristic algorithms, Freidman’s test anal-
ysis for multiple comparisons of the representative
algorithms has been performed considering the optimiza-
tion outcomes of 34 benchmark functions. Relying on the
ranking points of the algorithms assigned to the their
averaged mean fitness values of 30 independent runs for
eighteen different multimodal functions given in Table 8, a
statistically significant difference between the compared
algorithms is observed with the corresponding p-values of
1.64E-12, which is much less than the predetermined
threshold value of 0.05. This numerical behavior indicates
that there are significant differences in the general perfor-
mances of algorithms in solving multimodal test problems.
4.2 Comprehensive analysis on the exploitation
capabilities of the compared algorithms
This section aims to analyze and comparatively investigate
the general capabilities of the algorithms regarding to the
intensification of the fertile areas discovered in the pre-
ceding exploration phase. Algorithms with strong
exploitation capabilities are able to cope with the com-
plexities of the search space, with a view to reach the one
and only global optimum point of the problem. Tables 9
and 10 report the optimal results for 30D standard

123
14310 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

Table 7 Ranking points of the algorithms based on the best prediction results of 30 D multimodal functions
AFRICAN AQUILA BARNA EQUIL GRAD HARRIS MANTA PRO REPTILE RUNGE SNAKE

f1 1 7 6 11 1 8 1 1 1 9 10
f2 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 9 10
f3 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
f4 5 7 4 11 6 8 3 2 1 10 9
f5 4 6 5 11 7 8 3 2 1 10 9
f6 5 8 6 11 4 7 3 2 1 9 10
f7 4 7 6 11 5 8 3 2 1 9 10
f8 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 9 10
f9 6 2 1 10 4 4 7 11 9 8 2
f10 4 7 6 11 5 8 3 2 1 9 10
f11 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 9 10
f12 4 9 6 11 7 8 3 2 1 5 10
f13 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 10 9
f14 4 1 10 9 2 3 7 11 8 6 5
f15 1 1 1 11 8 7 1 1 1 10 9
f16 5 1 10 9 2 3 7 11 8 6 4
f17 3 6 11 4 7 5 2 9 9 1 8
f18 5 3 9 8 1 2 7 10 11 6 4
Average rank 3.11 3.88 4.77 10.16 3.55 4.66 3.05 3.94 3.22 7.55 8.27
Overall rank 2 5 8 11 4 7 1 6 3 9 10

Table 8 Ranking points of the algorithms based on their mean deviation results for 30D multimodal test problems
AFRICAN AQUILA BARNA EQUIL GRAD HARRIS MANTA PRO REPTILE RUNGE SNAKE

f1 5 8 6 10 4 7 1 1 1 9 11
f2 5 8 6 11 1 7 1 1 1 9 10
f3 6 7 1 11 1 8 1 1 1 9 10
f4 9 7 5 11 4 10 2 1 3 8 6
f5 6 7 3 11 8 5 4 2 1 9 10
f6 5 9 4 11 6 7 3 2 1 8 10
f7 5 7 6 11 4 8 3 2 1 9 10
f8 6 5 4 11 7 8 1 1 1 10 9
f9 4 1 10 9 2 7 3 11 8 6 5
f10 5 8 6 11 4 7 3 2 1 9 10
f11 6 7 4 11 5 8 1 1 1 9 10
f12 4 9 6 11 7 8 3 2 1 5 10
f13 5 7 1 11 8 1 1 1 6 10 9
f14 5 1 10 8 2 3 7 11 9 4 6
f15 6 4 3 11 8 7 9 1 1 10 5
f16 4 1 10 8 2 3 7 11 9 5 6
f17 3 8 10 4 6 5 2 11 9 1 7
f18 5 3 9 8 1 2 6 11 10 4 7
Average rank 5.22 5.94 5.77 9.94 4.44 6.16 3.22 4.05 3.61 7.44 8.38
Overall rank 5 7 6 11 4 8 1 3 2 9 10

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14311

Table 9 Statistical comparison of twelve algorithms for 30D unimodal functions from f17 – Sphere to f26 – Discus
Problem f19 2 Sphere f20 2 Brown
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 1.31E-36 1.95E-17 6.44E-17 3.19E-16 6.23E-34 9.30E-17 3.67E-16 1.79E-15

AQUILA 4.66E-24 1.99E-14 9.18E-14 4.97E-13 8.47E-21 7.06E-13 3.75E-12 2.05E-11
BARNA 3.88E-34 1.35E-12 7.37E-12 4.04E-11 1.51E-28 1.61E-16 7.40E-16 4.06E-15
EQUIL 3.59E-02 1.73E-01 1.49E-01 7.40E-01 5.72E-01 3.92E?00 3.73E?00 1.68E?01
GRAD 6.56E-32 1.76E-27 4.54E-27 2.06E-26 3.16E-33 1.57E-26 7.50E-26 4.12E-25
HARRISREAL 5.23E-20 2.23E-13 5.03E-13 2.18E-12 1.12E-21 5.09E-13 1.92E-12 1.04E-11
MANTA 9.40E-46 4.18E-36 1.92E-35 1.05E-34 1.09E-44 1.56E-34 7.97E-34 4.37E-33
PRO 2.67E-67 6.87E-61 1.17E-60 3.89E-60 4.78E-67 3.88E-59 1.57E-58 7.92E-58
REPTILE 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
RUNGE 3.55E-16 8.32E-10 4.30E-09 2.36E-08 3.94E-16 5.71E-11 1.76E-10 7.84E-10
SNAKE 8.70E-07 6.71E-03 1.72E-02 9.28E-02 1.05E-11 9.81E-03 2.55E-02 1.35E-01

Problem f21 2 Sum of different powers f22 2 Bent cigar

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 1.20E-47 8.87E-29 4.07E-28 2.20E-27 2.29E-28 1.57E-12 8.40E-12 4.60E-11

AQUILA 2.95E-23 3.32E-12 9.11E-12 3.83E-11 1.83E-15 4.16E-06 2.25E-05 1.23E-04
BARNA 1.95E-42 2.99E-20 1.63E-19 8.95E-19 2.46E-22 2.58E-10 1.02E-09 5.02E-09
EQUIL 1.75E-05 6.96E-02 1.81E-01 9.50E-01 5.13E?04 1.61E?05 8.93E?04 4.98E?05
GRAD 7.56E-40 2.53E-32 1.10E-31 5.98E-31 1.39E-27 3.90E-20 1.78E-19 9.68E-19
HARRISREAL 5.94E-33 3.05E-17 8.54E-17 3.50E-16 3.24E-17 1.09E-07 3.65E-07 1.94E-06
MANTA 1.47E-58 1.94E-49 9.03E-49 4.95E-48 2.08E-39 2.28E-29 1.11E-28 6.05E-28
PRO 4.38E-73 2.98E-62 1.38E-61 7.56E-61 2.39E-63 2.27E-53 1.23E-52 6.76E-52
REPTILE 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
RUNGE 5.92E-39 3.87E-19 2.12E-18 1.16E-17 8.20E-11 9.84E-06 3.38E-05 1.84E-04
SNAKE 5.48E-10 2.53E-04 1.04E-03 5.68E-03 3.87E-01 3.08E?04 1.31E?05 7.14E?05

Problem f23 - Sum of squares f24 - Dropwave

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 5.50E-37 1.70E-16 9.17E-16 5.03E-15 - 1.00E?00 - 1.00E?00 2.01E-13 - 1.00E?00

AQUILA 1.03E-22 3.66E-10 2.01E-09 1.10E-08 - 1.00E?00 - 9.98E-01 9.07E-03 - 9.52E-01
BARNA 7.58E-27 7.60E-14 4.12E-13 2.26E-12 - 1.00E?00 - 1.00E?00 6.31E-12 - 1.00E?00
EQUIL 7.33E-01 2.16E?00 1.23E?00 5.23E?00 - 4.78E-01 - 2.95E-01 8.33E-02 - 1.53E-01
GRAD 1.58E-30 1.72E-26 6.08E-26 3.12E-25 - 1.00E?00 - 9.98E-01 1.02E-02 - 9.44E-01
HARRISREAL 9.37E-19 1.08E-11 3.02E-11 1.22E-10 - 1.00E?00 - 9.98E-01 1.16E-02 - 9.36E-01
MANTA 1.63E-44 1.67E-33 7.80E-33 4.27E-32 - 1.00E?00 - 1.00E?00 3.68E-16 - 1.00E?00
PRO 2.96E-68 5.72E-59 2.10E-58 1.15E-57 - 1.00E?00 - 1.00E?00 0.00E?00 - 1.00E?00
REPTILE 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 - 1.00E?00 - 1.00E?00 0.00E?00 - 1.00E?00
RUNGE 2.49E-14 4.72E-10 1.91E-09 1.03E-08 - 9.36E-01 - 9.36E-01 7.47E-12 - 9.36E-01
SNAKE 4.35E-06 2.72E-01 7.21E-01 3.48E?00 - 9.36E-01 - 8.32E-01 1.10E-01 - 4.78E-01

Problem f25 2 Rosenbrock f26 2 Discus

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 7.63E-01 1.79E?01 1.26E?01 2.88E?01 3.13E-34 1.25E-13 6.46E-13 3.54E-12

AQUILA 8.68E-01 1.75E?01 1.12E?01 2.90E?01 7.68E-14 4.51E?00 1.28E?01 5.36E?01
BARNA 2.88E?01 2.89E?01 4.36E-02 2.90E?01 1.21E-30 3.83E-15 1.76E-14 9.62E-14
EQUIL 4.42E?01 7.80E?01 5.79E?01 3.67E?02 9.28E-02 6.44E-01 3.55E-01 1.89E?00
GRAD 2.62E-02 4.87E-01 7.92E-01 2.84E?00 5.05E-30 1.68E-21 9.17E-21 5.02E-20
HARRISREAL 4.31E-04 8.50E?00 1.18E?01 2.87E?01 1.12E-15 6.14E-10 2.63E-09 1.43E-08
MANTA 2.73E?01 2.81E?01 3.94E-01 2.88E?01 1.23E-41 4.43E-33 2.36E-32 1.29E-31
PRO 2.89E?01 2.90E?01 1.79E-02 2.90E?01 2.12E-64 6.14E-55 3.22E-54 1.77E-53
REPTILE 2.90E?01 2.90E?01 1.08E-02 2.90E?01 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
RUNGE 2.76E?01 2.86E?01 3.72E-01 2.89E?01 1.60E-14 6.54E-10 2.91E-09 1.59E-08
SNAKE 3.94E-03 1.93E?01 1.17E?01 3.16E?01 1.10E-06 9.31E-03 1.37E-02 4.57E-02

123
14312 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

Table 10 Statistical results of the compared algorithms for 30D unimodal test functions for f27 – Dixon-Price and f34—Powell
Problem f27- Dixon-price f28- Trid
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 2.46E-01 6.09E-01 1.88E-01 9.49E-01 - 1.62E?03 - 1.17E?03 1.77E?02 - 9.65E?02

AQUILA 2.49E-01 3.64E-01 1.78E-01 9.98E-01 - 1.51E?03 - 1.18E?03 1.53E?02 - 9.49E?02
BARNA 6.81E-01 7.70E-01 1.01E-01 9.87E-01 1.17E?01 2.05E?01 2.96E?00 2.51E?01
EQUIL 3.01E?00 8.39E?00 4.08E?00 2.04E?01 5.44E?02 2.99E?03 2.09E?03 8.68E?03
GRAD 1.92E-01 3.56E-01 1.73E-01 6.72E-01 - 1.55E?03 - 9.99E?02 1.64E?02 - 8.73E?02
HARRISREAL 2.50E-01 5.97E-01 3.12E-01 9.97E-01 - 1.66E?03 - 1.29E?03 1.68E?02 - 9.57E?02
MANTA 6.67E-01 6.70E-01 1.69E-03 6.73E-01 - 2.39E?02 - 9.16E?01 4.74E?01 - 1.39E?01
PRO 9.86E-01 9.97E-01 3.11E-03 1.00E?00 1.53E?01 2.75E?01 3.61E?00 3.00E?01
REPTILE 6.71E-01 9.76E-01 8.21E-02 1.00E?00 1.40E?01 2.85E?01 3.84E?00 3.00E?01
RUNGE 6.67E-01 6.94E-01 8.65E-02 1.00E?00 - 9.02E?02 - 7.42E?02 9.43E?01 - 5.44E?02
SNAKE 6.63E-01 1.03E?00 1.08E-01 1.26E?00 - 9.76E?02 - 7.02E?02 3.25E?02 2.74E?02
Problem f29- Schwefel 2.21 f30- Schwefel 2.23
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 1.17E-19 2.10E-09 6.41E-09 2.94E-08 5.12E-184 2.37E-83 1.30E-82 7.10E-82

AQUILA 9.11E-14 1.88E-08 7.78E-08 4.28E-07 3.65E-118 3.26E-71 1.78E-70 9.77E-70
BARNA 1.19E-14 3.34E-10 8.07E-10 3.48E-09 7.77E-163 2.64E-78 1.41E-77 7.71E-77
EQUIL 3.25E-01 5.83E-01 1.71E-01 8.78E-01 6.24E-07 1.09E-02 3.24E-02 1.65E-01
GRAD 5.40E-18 3.41E-14 6.49E-14 3.03E-13 5.11E-173 6.04E-128 3.30E-127 1.81E-126
HARRISREAL 1.77E-10 1.32E-07 2.57E-07 8.96E-07 1.15E-100 1.03E-59 3.85E-59 1.91E-58
MANTA 1.08E-22 4.93E-18 2.34E-17 1.29E-16 6.58E-212 1.30E-174 0.00E?00 3.87E-173
PRO 8.34E-36 2.38E-31 4.12E-31 1.72E-30 0.00E?00 3.85E-283 0.00E?00 1.16E-281
REPTILE 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
RUNGE 2.86E-07 5.69E-05 9.13E-05 4.22E-04 5.17E-70 1.20E-41 6.59E-41 3.61E-40
SNAKE 4.83E-06 5.02E-02 8.36E-02 4.25E-01 1.04E-37 3.11E-13 1.12E-12 4.72E-12

Problem f31 - Schwefel 2.25 f32 - Schwefel 2.20

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 2.34E-02 4.18E-01 7.83E-01 4.06E?00 2.81E-20 1.87E-09 8.75E-09 4.81E-08

AQUILA 5.58E-05 3.43E-01 3.91E-01 1.73E?00 1.90E-11 1.61E-06 8.67E-06 4.75E-05
BARNA 2.19E?01 2.43E?01 1.01E?00 2.61E?01 4.92E-14 1.64E-09 3.38E-09 1.47E-08
EQUIL 1.54E?01 2.01E?01 2.96E?00 2.83E?01 7.24E-01 1.30E?00 3.43E-01 2.13E?00
GRAD 4.56E-04 6.51E-02 1.25E-01 5.88E-01 3.54E-16 5.12E-13 1.19E-12 5.95E-12
HARRISREAL 1.35E-03 2.01E-01 2.33E-01 8.94E-01 1.81E-09 1.03E-06 2.48E-06 1.26E-05
MANTA 6.79E?00 1.08E?01 1.77E?00 1.47E?01 5.64E-22 4.15E-17 1.77E-16 9.68E-16
PRO 2.52E?01 2.83E?01 1.00E?00 2.90E?01 5.54E-33 1.10E-29 4.23E-29 2.32E-28
REPTILE 2.68E?01 2.77E?01 5.38E-01 2.88E?01 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
RUNGE 3.63E-01 1.36E?00 7.77E-01 3.91E?00 2.65E-08 1.07E-05 4.10E-05 2.25E-04
SNAKE 5.47E-03 4.56E?00 6.92E?00 2.38E?01 1.45E-03 7.21E-01 8.37E-01 2.96E?00

Problem f33- Streched Sine Wave f34- Powell

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 2.83E-09 1.90E-04 6.03E-04 3.09E-03 8.41E-51 1.18E-25 6.34E-25 3.47E-24

AQUILA 2.84E-03 2.83E-02 3.97E-02 1.52E-01 4.02E-22 3.18E-10 1.74E-09 9.54E-09
BARNA 6.62E-08 5.14E-04 1.16E-03 5.20E-03 4.74E-34 4.01E-23 1.56E-22 7.35E-22
EQUIL 4.58E?00 8.82E?00 1.92E?00 1.27E?01 1.58E-05 1.21E-01 3.57E-01 1.86E?00
GRAD 3.19E-07 2.36E-03 1.93E-03 5.10E-03 1.04E-41 2.15E-31 1.13E-30 6.17E-30

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14313

Table 10 (continued)
Problem f33- Streched Sine Wave f34- Powell
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

HARRISREAL 2.83E-03 1.34E-02 1.32E-02 5.44E-02 7.95E-30 6.55E-19 1.99E-18 8.44E-18

MANTA 2.21E-11 1.36E-03 1.59E-03 3.63E-03 1.31E-57 1.44E-46 7.69E-46 4.21E-45
PRO 1.57E-16 1.54E-07 7.75E-07 4.24E-06 6.19E-70 9.14E-61 5.00E-60 2.74E-59
REPTILE 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
RUNGE 2.04E-02 1.64E-01 1.30E-01 5.03E-01 1.10E-37 9.15E-26 4.60E-25 2.51E-24
SNAKE 1.65E-01 2.65E?00 1.78E?00 7.27E?00 1.91E-08 1.35E-03 6.61E-03 3.63E-02

Table 11 Comparative performances and ranking points of the competitive algorithms based on their best predictions
AFRICAN AQUILA BARNA EQUIL GRAD HARRIS MANTA PRO REPTILE RUNGE SNAKE

f19 4 7 5 11 6 8 3 2 1 9 10
f20 4 8 6 11 5 7 3 2 1 9 10
f21 4 9 5 11 6 8 3 2 1 7 10
f22 4 8 6 11 5 7 3 2 1 9 10
f23 4 7 6 11 5 8 3 2 1 9 10
f24 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 9 9
f25 4 5 8 11 3 1 6 9 10 7 2
f26 4 9 5 11 6 7 3 2 1 8 10
f27 2 3 9 11 1 4 6 10 8 6 5
f28 2 4 8 11 3 1 7 10 9 6 5
f29 4 7 6 11 5 8 3 2 1 9 10
f30 4 7 6 11 5 8 3 1 1 9 10
f31 5 1 9 8 2 3 7 10 11 6 4
f32 4 7 6 11 5 8 3 2 1 9 10
f33 4 8 5 11 6 7 3 2 1 9 10
f34 4 9 7 11 5 8 3 2 1 6 10
Average rank 3.62 6.25 6.12 10.81 4.31 5.87 3.75 3.81 3.12 7.93 8.43
Overall rank 2 8 7 11 5 6 3 4 1 9 10

unimodal benchmark problems by the compared eleven
algorithms. REPTILE algorithm shows the best perfor-
mance for 12 unimodal functions out of 16 instances and
becomes the leading algorithm for 30D unimodal test
problems. Furthermore, this algorithm approaches the
global optimum answers of f20, f21, f22, f23, f24, f26, f29, f30,
f32, f33, and f34 problems. According to the reported ranking
results obtained for the best predictions of the compared
algorithms in Table 11, AFRICAN algorithm has the sec-
ond-best average ranking point value of 3.62, yet only
reaching the global optimum value of f24 function.
MANTA is the third-best algorithm concerning the best
solutions-based ranking points with the corresponding
value of 3.75. Although PRO is the most accurate algo-
rithm for test functions of f24 and f30 and becoming the
second best algorithm for ten test functions, including f19,
f20, f21, f22, f23, f26, f29, f32, f33, and f34 test problems, its
performance of the remaining cases are so dissatisfactory,
which puts this algorithm in the fourth place among the
other methods. EQUIL algorithm is again the worst per-
former as occurred for multimodal test functions with the
respective ranking point values of 10.81. Table 12 com-
pares eleven algorithms with respective ranking points
obtained for the mean deviation rates. REPTILE continues
its dominancy regarding to the mean results having the best
ranking point value of 3.06. It is interesting to see GRAD

123
14314 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

Table 12 Evaluation of the prediction successes of the algorithms relying on their mean fitness values
AFRICAN AQUILA BARNA EQUIL GRAD HARRIS MANTA PRO REPTILE RUNGE SNAKE

f19 5 6 8 11 4 7 3 2 1 9 10
f20 5 8 6 11 4 7 3 2 1 9 10
f21 5 9 6 11 4 8 3 2 1 7 10
f22 5 8 6 11 4 7 3 2 1 9 10
f23 5 8 6 11 4 7 3 2 1 9 10
f24 1 6 1 11 6 6 1 1 1 9 10
f25 4 3 8 11 1 2 6 9 9 7 5
f26 6 11 5 10 4 7 3 2 1 8 9
f27 4 2 7 11 1 3 5 9 8 6 10
f28 3 2 8 11 4 1 7 9 10 5 6
f29 6 7 5 11 4 8 3 2 1 9 10
f30 5 7 6 11 4 8 3 2 1 9 10
f31 4 3 9 8 1 2 7 11 10 5 6
f32 6 8 5 11 4 7 3 2 1 9 10
f33 3 8 4 11 6 7 5 2 1 9 10
f34 6 9 7 11 4 8 3 2 1 5 10
Average rank 4.56 6.56 6.06 10.75 3.68 5.93 3.81 3.81 3.06 7.75 9.12
Overall rank 5 8 7 11 2 6 3 3 1 9 10

algorithm in second place for mean results as there is not a
clear superiority of this method considering the best results.
MANTA and PRO algorithms share the third-best ranking
points assigned for mean fitness values. In addition,
Friedman’s test results obtained for 30D unimodal test
functions indicate the statistical difference among the
compared algorithms with the respective p-values of
2.45E-14, which is obtained by considering the mean
values of the ranking points for 30D unimodal test func-
tions tabulated in Table 12.
4.3 Investigation on the scalability
of the compared algorithms
This section scrutinizes the optimization performance of
eleven compared metaheuristics on hyper-dimensional
500D and 1000D test functions and makes a comprehen-
sive investigation on how the prediction accuracy of the
algorithms is influenced by the increasing problem
dimensionalities, particularly for hyper-dimensional prob-
lems. There is a common and strong belief in the opti-
mization community such that the vast majority of the
metaheuristic algorithms suffer from the curse of dimen-
sionality, in which a large number of function evaluations
is required to conquer the inherent drawbacks of the
increased search space whose spatial volume exponentially
grows with the increasing problem dimensionality.
Tables 13 and 14 provide the statistical analysis results of
the compared eleven algorithms for 500D variants of the
previously investigated test functions, but only dealing
with multimodal benchmark functions from f1-Ackley to
f18-Levy. Total number of consecutive and independent 30
algorithms runs are performed for the experimental con-
ditions covering a predefined population size of N = 20 and
a termination criterion fixed to 100 number of iterations. It
is seen that there is no clear deterioration in the solution
accuracies of the compared algorithms when problem
dimensionalities are increased from 30 to 500. Some
algorithms between them are able to reach the global
optimum points of f2, f3, f4, f5, f6, f8, f10, f11, f12, f13, and f15
test problems even after 2000 function evaluations, which
is relatively small as far as the high problem dimensionality
is concerned. It is noteworthy to mention that PRO shows a
consistent prediction performance for 500D test functions
of f2, f3, f8, f11, and f15 for which it obtains the same global
optimum answer in each algorithm run. REPTILE algo-
rithm again proves its competitiveness in hyper-dimen-
sional multimodal problems in terms of obtaining the most
accurate results as it reaches to the best-known solutions of
f2, f3, f4, f5, f6, f8, f10, f11, f12, f13, and f15 benchmark
problems. Tables 15 and 16 report the statistical results of
the 500D unimodal test functions obtained for eleven
compared algorithms. REPTILE acquires the best solutions
of f19, f20, f21, f22, f23, f24, f26, f29, f30, f32, f33, f34 test

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14315

Table 13 Statistical results for 500D multimodal test functions from f1 – Ackley to f8 – Schaffer test functions
f1- Ackley f2- Rastrigin
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 8.88E-16 3.74E-09 1.73E-08 9.49E-08 0.00E?00 2.21E-12 8.11E-12 3.73E-11

AQUILA 3.88E-13 2.10E-07 7.45E-07 3.91E-06 0.00E?00 3.03E-13 4.36E-13 9.09E-13
BARNA 1.87E-14 6.71E-10 1.82E-09 7.05E-09 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
EQUIL 2.91E?00 3.39E?00 3.01E-01 4.06E?00 2.55E?03 3.20E?03 2.63E?02 3.86E?03
GRAD 8.88E-16 3.74E-13 6.59E-13 3.02E-12 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
HARRIS 2.54E-10 2.96E-07 6.20E-07 3.19E-06 0.00E?00 3.51E-08 1.56E-07 8.44E-07
MANTA 8.88E-16 8.88E-16 0.00E?00 8.88E-16 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
PRO 8.88E-16 8.88E-16 0.00E?00 8.88E-16 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
REPTILE 8.88E-16 8.88E-16 0.00E?00 8.88E-16 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
RUNGE 6.69E-07 3.36E-05 5.38E-05 2.59E-04 1.14E-09 7.20E-05 2.23E-04 1.05E-03
SNAKE 2.94E-03 7.33E-01 6.85E-01 2.54E?00 9.43E-02 8.11E?02 9.94E?02 4.37E?03
Problem f3- Griewank f4- Zakharov
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 0.00E?00 1.37E-16 5.31E-16 2.44E-15 5.91E-03 3.33E?03 2.38E?03 8.63E?03

AQUILA 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 9.98E-14 5.63E?05 2.72E?06 1.49E?07
BARNA 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 5.57E-25 1.70E-10 9.24E-10 5.06E-09
EQUIL 2.70E-01 4.76E-01 9.59E-02 6.88E-01 4.68E?03 1.01E?04 1.24E?04 7.33E?04
GRAD 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 2.09E-06 1.09E?00 3.70E?00 1.78E?01
HARRIS 0.00E?00 1.44E-12 7.72E-12 4.23E-11 1.22E?02 1.13E?04 6.01E?03 1.73E?04
MANTA 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 4.94E-43 1.78E-31 6.35E-31 3.35E-30
PRO 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 1.22E-62 7.61E-55 3.57E-54 1.96E-53
REPTILE 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 7.29E-03 2.42E-02 1.20E-01
RUNGE 1.87E-14 2.05E-09 6.53E-09 3.41E-08 5.67E?02 4.40E?03 2.41E?03 1.14E?04
SNAKE 2.64E-08 1.11E-02 3.08E-02 1.68E-01 2.59E-05 1.70E?00 5.26E?00 2.83E?01

Problem f5 - Salomon f6 - Alpine

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 5.53E-16 3.37E-03 1.82E-02 9.99E-02 7.52E-18 3.19E-09 9.68E-09 4.81E-08

AQUILA 3.91E-11 4.37E-05 2.14E-04 1.17E-03 5.51E-12 8.63E-04 2.71E-03 1.14E-02
BARNA 2.52E-15 4.47E-09 1.67E-08 8.98E-08 6.01E-15 4.80E-09 1.34E-08 6.77E-08
EQUIL 2.40E?00 2.99E?00 3.04E-01 3.80E?00 6.62E?01 9.81E?01 1.32E?01 1.23E?02
GRAD 1.02E-10 2.73E-02 4.44E-02 9.99E-02 1.26E-15 1.98E-12 3.65E-12 1.40E-11
HARRIS 6.57E-10 6.67E-03 2.53E-02 9.99E-02 8.21E-09 3.17E-06 5.13E-06 2.38E-05
MANTA 1.31E-21 3.33E-03 1.82E-02 9.99E-02 1.11E-21 1.09E-16 5.18E-16 2.85E-15
PRO 8.14E-34 4.99E-28 2.24E-27 1.22E-26 8.76E-33 5.84E-30 1.08E-29 5.21E-29
REPTILE 0.00E?00 6.49E-22 2.49E-21 1.10E-20 0.00E?00 4.72E-61 2.59E-60 1.42E-59
RUNGE 9.99E-02 1.03E-01 1.83E-02 2.00E-01 9.43E-07 2.25E-04 4.20E-04 1.60E-03
SNAKE 3.41E-03 3.39E-01 2.57E-01 1.06E?00 9.57E-03 2.97E?00 9.13E?00 4.82E?01

f7- Csendes f8- Schaffer

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 8.29E-95 7.39E-43 4.04E-42 2.21E-41 0.00E?00 4.04E-10 2.20E-09 1.21E-08

AQUILA 4.68E-76 1.30E-42 7.14E-42 3.91E-41 0.00E?00 2.28E-13 1.23E-12 6.76E-12
BARNA 1.24E-85 7.89E-38 4.32E-37 2.37E-36 0.00E?00 4.75E-14 2.39E-13 1.31E-12
EQUIL 2.98E?03 1.27E?04 9.21E?03 3.29E?04 2.07E?02 2.14E?02 3.94E?00 2.21E?02
GRAD 2.68E-95 3.27E-70 1.58E-69 8.61E-69 0.00E?00 1.70E-03 9.29E-03 5.09E-02

123
14316
Table 13 (continued)
f7- Csendes
Best Mean Std Dev
HARRIS 6.65E-65 3.22E-34 1.74E-33
MANTA 1.04E-141 2.39E-97 1.31E-96
PRO 7.18E-204 9.68E-176 0.00E?00
REPTILE 5.98E-317 2.09E-57 1.15E-56
RUNGE 1.27E-26 1.28E-12 6.84E-12
SNAKE 9.15E-18 3.27E-07 1.64E-06
problems which is a quite successful achievement for a
stochastic optimizer as it is not obviously influenced by the
adverse effects of the curse of dimensionality. Other
algorithms also are not affected by the increased problem
dimensionalities as most of the optimizers obtain predic-
tions very close to the global optimum solution of the
problems. Only EQUIL algorithm fails to get close to the
optimal solutions within 2000 function evaluations while
other methods show satisfactory convergence tendencies
for 500D problems. Table 17 reports the ranking points of
the compared algorithms obtained for the mean results of
500D multimodal and unimodal test problems. PRO algo-
rithm has the best average point of 3.55 for multimodal
problems and 3.18 for unimodal test problems, which put
this algorithm in the first place considering the mean
deviation results. MANTA algorithm has the second best
overall ranking point of 3.67, whose respective average
ranking point for multimodal test functions is 3.94 and
unimodal test functions is 3.37. Although REPTILE algo-
rithm finds the best-known solutions of 12 benchmark
functions out of 16 test instances, mean solutions acquired
by this algorithm is not as successful and persistent as
answers obtained for the best results since it attains the best
mean solution in seven test cases, which put this algorithm
in third place with respect to overall ranking point taking
into account of the average points of unimodal and multi-
modal test problems. Indisputable estimation performance
of REPTILE is evident based on the successful achieve-
ments in acquiring the best solutions of multimodal and
unimodal optimization problems with the minimum overall
ranking point of 3.00, as reported in Table 18. This algo-
rithm obtains the minimum fitness value among the other
methods after the completion of consecutive functions
evaluations for multimodal test functions of f1, f2, f3, f4, f5,
f6, f7, f8, f10, f11, f12, f13, and f15 despite its poor performance
for predicting the accurate solutions of f9, f14, f16, and f17
test problems. For unimodal test functions, REPTILE only
123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
f8- Schaffer
Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst
9.55E-33 0.00E?00 1.33E-02 7.31E-02 4.00E-01
7.16E-96 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
2.88E-174 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
6.28E-56 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
3.75E-11 1.92E-01 1.99E?02 5.06E?01 2.24E?02
9.00E-06 1.76E-02 7.31E?00 1.14E?01 5.14E?01
fails in f25, f27, f28, and f31 benchmark functions while
reaching the lowest fitness values for the remaining test
functions, which makes it the best optimizer between the
compared ones with having an average point of 2.87. PRO
has the second-best average point of 3.68 for unimodal test
functions with being the second-best algorithm for most of
the unimodal optimization problems. However, this rela-
tively satisfying performance for unimodal functions does
not help it being in fourth place in overall ranking points.
Despite being in the third place for unimodal test functions,
having only one best position out of 16 unimodal test
functions, MANTA algorithm occupies the second place
with the overall average point of 3.52. AFRICAN algo-
rithm is the third-best method between them considering
general prediction performances obtained for unimodal and
multimodal test problems with respective overall average
point of 3.61. Friedman test analysis based on the mean
results of 500D test functions shows that there is a statis-
tical significance between algorithms, which is validated by
the corresponding p-value of 7.51E-12.
Tables 19 and 20 report the statistical results for 1000D
multimodal test functions for the eleven compared algo-
rithms. Although there is a mammoth increase in the
dimensionality of the test problems which imposes a great
deal of complexity on the search domain, there is no clear
deterioration in the general solution qualities except for the
f17-Qing function. AFRICAN and REPTILE algorithms
share the best seats considering the best results of the
1000D multimodal test functions when their respective
average points (3.00) given in Table 23 are examined.
GRAD algorithm is the third-best optimizer with an aver-
age point of 3.55, slightly followed by MANTA algorithm,
which in fourth place. Tables 21 and 22 provide the sta-
tistical results obtained for 1000D unimodal test functions
by the compared algorithms. No significant deterioration in
general solution qualities is observed for the algorithms.
However, RUNGE algorithm is not able to converge to the
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14317

Table 14 Comparison of the statistical results acquired by the compared algorithms for 500D test functions from f9 – Yang2 to f18 – Levy
function
Problem f9- Yang2 f10-Inverted Cosine Mixture
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 5.94E-213 3.44E-158 1.88E-157 1.03E-156 1.32E-36 6.46E-13 3.54E-12 1.94E-11

AQUILA 4.47E-215 6.78E-215 0.00E?00 2.38E-214 3.37E-21 6.86E-12 2.54E-11 1.08E-10
BARNA 1.33E-120 1.22E-99 6.67E-99 3.65E-98 1.53E-25 1.26E-15 6.08E-15 3.34E-14
EQUIL 1.08E-85 4.69E-65 2.55E-64 1.40E-63 1.50E?02 1.98E?02 2.71E?01 2.57E?02
GRAD 4.73E-215 4.77E-212 0.00E?00 1.42E-210 1.58E-29 8.19E-23 3.87E-22 2.13E-21
HARRIS 4.47E-215 2.32E-194 0.00E?00 6.97E-193 3.62E-17 1.52E-11 5.32E-11 2.89E-10
MANTA 8.55E-124 7.13E-94 3.63E-93 1.99E-92 1.47E-45 4.52E-32 2.41E-31 1.32E-30
PRO 6.41E-119 9.74E-83 5.30E-82 2.90E-81 1.66E-67 2.63E-57 1.03E-56 4.94E-56
REPTILE 7.81E-96 9.10E-73 3.33E-72 1.53E-71 0.00E?00 1.25E-121 6.84E-121 3.75E-120
RUNGE 8.33E-127 1.47E-97 5.17E-97 2.55E-96 2.79E-10 5.19E-05 2.79E-04 1.53E-03
SNAKE 4.55E-215 5.37E-189 0.00E?00 1.61E-187 1.76E-04 3.59E?00 7.07E?00 3.01E?01
Problem f11- Wavy f12- Yang3
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 0.00E?00 5.50E-08 3.01E-07 1.65E-06 1.37E-21 9.53E-10 5.21E-09 2.85E-08

AQUILA 0.00E?00 2.22E-11 1.21E-10 6.64E-10 3.62E-09 1.90E-04 8.75E-04 4.81E-03
BARNA 0.00E?00 1.88E-16 8.36E-16 4.58E-15 8.06E-18 9.34E-13 1.80E-12 8.02E-12
EQUIL 8.84E-01 9.25E-01 1.83E-02 9.51E-01 1.03E-06 1.31E?14 7.19E?14 3.94E?15
GRAD 0.00E?00 5.40E-17 2.17E-16 1.13E-15 3.06E-17 3.68E-09 1.73E-08 9.48E-08
HARRIS 0.00E?00 5.01E-12 1.19E-11 4.56E-11 1.50E-14 1.09E-07 5.21E-07 2.86E-06
MANTA 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 7.60E-24 1.47E-14 4.52E-14 2.24E-13
PRO 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 2.29E-35 8.48E-27 3.17E-26 1.63E-25
REPTILE 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 1.32E-19 5.02E-19 2.67E-18
RUNGE 4.97E-11 3.84E-05 1.31E-04 6.64E-04 2.58E-09 Inf NaN Inf
SNAKE 1.99E-04 5.58E-01 3.44E-01 9.57E-01 2.43E-05 Inf NaN Inf

Problem f13 - Yang4 f14 - Penalized1

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN - 1.00E?00 - 3.46E-01 4.69E-01 1.13E-203 1.04E-04 3.51E-03 5.26E-03 2.27E-02

AQUILA - 1.00E?00 - 8.33E-01 3.56E-01 3.00E-206 4.42E-09 1.37E-05 2.05E-05 8.33E-05
BARNA - 1.00E?00 - 8.58E-01 3.44E-01 1.30E-168 1.13E?00 1.14E?00 9.42E-03 1.16E?00
EQUIL 1.61E-170 7.07E-166 0.00E?00 1.61E-164 1.21E?00 1.38E?00 9.68E-02 1.58E?00
GRAD - 1.00E?00 - 4.16E-01 4.61E-01 2.70E-215 1.90E-06 1.87E-04 2.94E-04 1.36E-03
HARRIS - 1.00E?00 - 8.30E-01 3.27E-01 2.59E-215 6.84E-07 5.80E-04 1.32E-03 7.19E-03
MANTA - 1.00E?00 - 4.94E-01 4.86E-01 5.95E-171 8.42E-01 9.09E-01 3.69E-02 9.71E-01
PRO - 1.00E?00 - 9.87E-01 4.71E-02 - 7.72E-01 1.17E?00 1.20E?00 1.10E-02 1.21E?00
REPTILE - 1.00E?00 - 6.67E-02 2.54E-01 1.13E-173 2.05E-01 9.46E-01 3.07E-01 1.21E?00
RUNGE 3.29E-203 1.15E-174 0.00E?00 1.92E-173 3.33E-02 4.66E-02 6.94E-03 6.37E-02
SNAKE - 7.23E-02 - 2.59E-03 1.32E-02 2.95E-210 9.48E-06 5.87E-02 1.81E-01 9.80E-01

Problem f15- Path f16- Quintic

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 0.00E?00 3.52E?00 1.65E?01 8.99E?01 3.39E?01 2.15E?02 1.44E?02 6.36E?02

AQUILA 0.00E?00 8.18E-04 2.50E-03 1.00E-02 2.82E-01 1.99E?01 1.94E?01 7.03E?01
BARNA 0.00E?00 5.09E-03 2.65E-02 1.45E-01 1.81E?03 1.90E?03 2.90E?01 1.94E?03
EQUIL 2.24E?02 2.30E?02 2.10E?00 2.33E?02 2.40E?03 3.63E?03 1.07E?03 7.50E?03

123
14318 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

Table 14 (continued)
Problem f15- Path f16- Quintic
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

GRAD 1.49E-12 1.60E?01 5.28E?01 2.30E?02 6.56E?00 4.84E?01 3.79E?01 1.91E?02

HARRIS 3.21E-14 1.55E?01 5.78E?01 2.28E?02 1.31E?01 6.92E?01 4.40E?01 2.06E?02
MANTA 0.00E?00 4.61E?01 9.24E?01 2.32E?02 1.61E?03 1.70E?03 3.19E?01 1.76E?03
PRO 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 1.86E?03 1.93E?03 3.14E?01 1.97E?03
REPTILE 0.00E?00 4.38E-12 2.40E-11 1.31E-10 9.19E?02 1.84E?03 3.10E?02 2.00E?03
RUNGE 2.01E?02 2.23E?02 7.94E?00 2.32E?02 5.11E?02 5.69E?02 2.55E?01 6.25E?02
SNAKE 4.94E-05 8.31E-01 2.58E?00 1.41E?01 5.38E?00 4.84E?02 4.66E?02 1.81E?03

Problem f17- Qing f18—Levy

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 2.76E?07 3.22E?07 1.18E?06 3.38E?07 1.73E-01 1.47E?00 1.35E?00 5.40E?00

AQUILA 3.21E?07 3.27E?07 3.90E?05 3.35E?07 1.06E-05 2.46E-01 3.67E-01 1.48E?00
BARNA 3.13E?07 3.32E?07 7.46E?05 3.40E?07 1.74E?02 1.79E?02 2.09E?00 1.82E?02
EQUIL 3.35E?07 3.38E?07 1.59E?05 3.42E?07 1.83E?02 2.16E?02 2.06E?01 2.67E?02
GRAD 2.24E?07 2.41E?07 1.30E?06 2.74E?07 1.06E-04 4.60E-02 5.91E-02 2.17E-01
HARRIS 2.51E?07 2.76E?07 1.56E?06 3.09E?07 1.72E-03 2.00E-01 3.12E-01 1.42E?00
MANTA 3.10E?07 3.22E?07 6.11E?05 3.33E?07 1.32E?02 1.43E?02 5.44E?00 1.53E?02
PRO 3.31E?07 3.34E?07 1.33E?05 3.36E?07 1.79E?02 1.86E?02 2.02E?00 1.88E?02
REPTILE 3.26E?07 3.29E?07 2.13E?05 3.33E?07 1.83E?02 1.86E?02 1.05E?00 1.88E?02
RUNGE 3.29E?07 3.33E?07 2.19E?05 3.37E?07 4.51E?00 7.14E?00 1.06E?00 1.07E?01
SNAKE 2.18E?07 2.33E?07 1.20E?06 2.64E?07 4.22E-05 3.89E?00 6.45E?00 2.38E?01

optimal solution of f21-Sum of difference test function and
is labeled as ‘‘N/A’’ which indicates that no feasible answer
is attained throughout the sequential algorithm runs. Fur-
thermore, SNAKE algorithm only finds one feasible solu-
tion during the course of independent runs for this test
instance. Similar tendencies of these algorithms are also
evident for the unimodal test function of f34—Powell, for
which RUNGE algorithm do not find any valid solution
after the consecutive runs, and SNAKE algorithm attains
the feasible best solution of 2.81E-06. AFRICAN algo-
rithm is another algorithm failing to obtain feasible solu-
tions during the algorithm runs but only to find one
solution, which is 1.74E-46 for f34- Powell function.
REPTILE algorithm is superior to the remaining algo-
rithms in obtaining the global best solutions for 1000D test
functions of f19, f20, f21, f22, f23, f24, f26, f29, f30, f32, f33, and
f34. PRO algorithm sits on the second-best seat for most of
the test cases, which makes this algorithm the second-best
performer when its respective average values obtained for
unimodal test functions given in Table 23 are thoroughly
examined. Third-best algorithm for unimodal test problems
is MANTA algorithm which the corresponding average
point of 3.62. When all ranking points are averaged for
unimodal and multimodal test problems, it is seen that
REPTILE is the best performer while AFRICAN yielding
the second-best predictions. MANTA algorithm is in the
third-best seat, outperforming the PRO algorithm, which
has the overall fourth-best predictions when the best results
are primarily considered. Table 24 reports the ranking
points of the algorithms for the mean results of the 1000D
benchmark functions. REPTILE algorithm does not sustain
its leadership position when comparisons are made based
on the mean solutions and lose its place to PRO algorithm
in overall ranking points. MANTA algorithm yields the
second-best mean results, which are better than the previ-
ous ranking order related with the comparisons of the best
results. REPTILE algorithm’s overall average point puts it
in third place, which also indicates that its solution con-
sistency is hampered by the increased problem dimen-
sionalities, particularly for hyper-dimensional problems.

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14319

Table 15 Estimation results for 500D unimodal test functions from f19—Sphere to f26—Discus
Problem f19- Sphere f20- Brown
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 4.24E-31 8.73E-13 4.63E-12 2.54E-11 1.45E-46 1.94E-12 1.06E-11 5.82E-11

AQUILA 7.18E-22 6.16E-13 3.03E-12 1.66E-11 4.25E-21 3.19E-13 1.21E-12 4.88E-12
BARNA 4.84E-32 2.08E-15 1.14E-14 6.24E-14 2.40E-27 5.64E-15 3.02E-14 1.65E-13
EQUIL 9.34E?01 1.50E?02 3.94E?01 2.50E?02 4.88E?14 3.54E?49 1.94E?50 1.06E?51
GRAD 1.52E-28 3.68E-24 1.17E-23 6.34E-23 3.80E-27 3.10E-23 7.69E-23 3.81E-22
HARRIS 1.35E-21 3.20E-11 1.43E-10 7.78E-10 1.24E-17 4.38E-11 2.07E-10 1.13E-09
MANTA 1.35E-42 4.50E-33 2.39E-32 1.31E-31 4.99E-44 1.34E-32 7.01E-32 3.84E-31
PRO 5.96E-67 3.14E-60 1.08E-59 5.72E-59 1.78E-67 9.00E-58 3.47E-57 1.73E-56
REPTILE 0.00E?00 2.69E-153 1.47E-152 8.07E-152 0.00E?00 1.19E-46 3.70E-46 1.51E-45
RUNGE 1.20E-11 3.40E-08 7.78E-08 2.90E-07 7.55E-11 8.65E-07 2.07E-06 1.04E-05
SNAKE 3.74E-06 6.35E-01 2.77E?00 1.53E?01 1.27E-05 6.37E-02 1.64E-01 8.73E-01

Problem f21- Sum of difference f22- Bentcigar

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 1.96E-47 3.31E-24 1.41E-23 7.62E-23 6.53E-36 7.37E-11 2.34E-10 1.05E-09

AQUILA 4.03E-24 1.26E-11 6.11E-11 3.34E-10 2.61E-18 1.32E-05 5.12E-05 2.52E-04
BARNA 8.02E-35 2.70E-18 1.32E-17 7.20E-17 9.80E-22 1.26E-10 3.51E-10 1.42E-09
EQUIL 2.79E-12 3.02E?00 1.65E?01 9.06E?01 1.02E?08 1.54E?08 3.13E?07 2.31E?08
GRAD 5.57E-35 1.06E-29 2.95E-29 1.54E-28 1.06E-23 7.73E-17 4.13E-16 2.26E-15
HARRIS 3.67E-31 3.39E-18 1.35E-17 7.31E-17 4.89E-12 3.70E-06 1.08E-05 5.31E-05
MANTA 1.15E-57 7.80E-50 4.09E-49 2.24E-48 1.57E-36 7.13E-26 3.89E-25 2.13E-24
PRO 6.05E-72 1.77E-61 5.71E-61 2.73E-60 9.86E-62 8.41E-53 2.47E-52 1.18E-51
REPTILE 0.00E?00 6.85E-43 2.41E-42 1.22E-41 0.00E?00 2.71E-98 1.48E-97 8.12E-97
RUNGE 8.95E-23 Inf NaN Inf 4.76E-05 2.16E-01 7.67E-01 4.16E?00
SNAKE 3.83E-08 1.71E?149 9.34E?149 5.12E?150 5.52E-01 6.38E?05 1.92E?06 9.77E?06

Problem f23- Sumsquares f24- Dropwave

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 1.73E-36 1.29E-14 5.95E-14 3.27E-13 - 1.00E?00 - 1.00E?00 1.21E-04 - 9.99E-01

AQUILA 2.94E-19 5.11E-14 1.28E-13 4.52E-13 - 1.00E?00 - 9.96E-01 1.64E-02 - 9.35E-01
BARNA 2.09E-27 4.64E-12 2.45E-11 1.35E-10 - 1.00E?00 - 1.00E?00 4.53E-11 - 1.00E?00
EQUIL 2.30E?04 3.35E?04 9.00E?03 6.17E?04 - 4.63E-03 - 3.32E-03 6.70E-04 - 1.97E-03
GRAD 1.30E-26 1.79E-21 5.32E-21 2.74E-20 - 1.00E?00 - 9.96E-01 1.62E-02 - 9.36E-01
HARRIS 2.16E-18 1.50E-09 6.97E-09 3.83E-08 - 1.00E?00 - 9.98E-01 1.16E-02 - 9.36E-01
MANTA 2.00E-39 3.07E-31 1.02E-30 5.23E-30 - 1.00E?00 - 1.00E?00 1.74E-12 - 1.00E?00
PRO 1.41E-64 1.55E-55 5.69E-55 2.61E-54 - 1.00E?00 - 1.00E?00 0.00E?00 - 1.00E?00
REPTILE 0.00E?00 6.17E-244 0.00E?00 1.85E-242 - 1.00E?00 - 1.00E?00 0.00E?00 - 1.00E?00
RUNGE 6.70E-09 3.38E-05 1.02E-04 5.43E-04 - 9.36E-01 - 9.27E-01 4.98E-02 - 6.64E-01
SNAKE 2.47E-03 1.09E?02 2.98E?02 1.18E?03 - 9.62E-01 - 4.08E-01 2.67E-01 - 6.02E-02

Problem f25- Rosenbrock f26- Discus

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 5.86E?00 4.00E?02 2.01E?02 7.17E?02 7.95E-32 4.61E-17 1.44E-16 7.29E-16

AQUILA 1.46E-01 2.75E?02 2.13E?02 4.94E?02 3.08E-17 2.38E-06 1.06E-05 5.69E-05
BARNA 4.99E?02 4.99E?02 2.92E-02 4.99E?02 5.62E-30 5.68E-12 3.11E-11 1.70E-10
EQUIL 3.19E?04 7.97E?04 3.19E?04 1.54E?05 1.44E?02 2.22E?02 4.42E?01 3.44E?02
GRAD 4.98E-02 2.79E?01 9.18E?01 4.95E?02 3.58E-28 1.51E-21 4.82E-21 2.23E-20
HARRIS 4.49E-02 1.14E?02 1.77E?02 4.94E?02 7.64E-18 3.98E-10 1.32E-09 7.09E-09
MANTA 4.98E?02 4.98E?02 8.83E-02 4.99E?02 5.79E-42 1.04E-33 3.52E-33 1.84E-32
PRO 4.99E?02 4.99E?02 1.77E-02 4.99E?02 1.88E-62 1.42E-55 5.42E-55 2.87E-54
REPTILE 4.99E?02 4.99E?02 8.53E-03 4.99E?02 0.00E?00 6.51E-183 0.00E?00 1.95E-181
RUNGE 4.96E?02 4.97E?02 1.08E?00 4.99E?02 4.34E-11 5.28E-06 2.60E-05 1.43E-04
SNAKE 6.19E-02 3.01E?02 2.11E?02 5.23E?02 2.67E-04 3.41E-01 6.72E-01 3.19E?00

123
14320 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

Table 16 Statistical results obtained for 500D unimodal functions from f27 – Dixon and Price to f34—Powell
Problem f27- Dixon and Price f28- Trid
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 6.85E-01 9.67E-01 8.89E-02 1.00E?00 - 2.73E?05 - 1.32E?05 8.86E?04 - 4.21E?02

AQUILA 2.52E-01 9.55E-01 1.53E-01 1.00E?00 - 2.76E?05 - 2.52E?05 5.70E?03 - 2.43E?05
BARNA 8.95E-01 9.96E-01 1.91E-02 1.00E?00 4.86E?02 4.93E?02 2.98E?00 4.98E?02
EQUIL 3.20E?05 6.19E?05 2.46E?05 1.24E?06 6.63E?10 1.02E?11 2.43E?10 1.48E?11
GRAD 3.78E-01 9.79E-01 1.14E-01 1.00E?00 - 2.52E?05 - 2.32E?05 2.56E?04 - 1.36E?05
HARRIS 2.52E-01 9.50E-01 1.90E-01 1.00E?00 - 3.12E?05 - 2.55E?05 1.52E?04 - 2.33E?05
MANTA 6.76E-01 6.87E-01 1.10E-02 7.21E-01 4.31E?02 4.48E?02 7.15E?00 4.65E?02
PRO 1.00E?00 1.00E?00 1.41E-05 1.00E?00 4.95E?02 4.99E?02 1.55E?00 5.00E?02
REPTILE 9.98E-01 1.00E?00 3.01E-04 1.00E?00 4.94E?02 4.98E?02 2.03E?00 5.00E?02
RUNGE 9.97E-01 1.00E?00 1.83E-03 1.01E?00 - 2.16E?02 3.91E?03 5.65E?03 2.05E?04
SNAKE 1.00E?00 1.78E?01 3.96E?01 1.92E?02 - 2.49E?05 2.18E?07 5.97E?07 3.13E?08

Problem f29- Schwefel 2.21 f30- Schwefel 2.23

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 1.56E-19 9.40E-08 3.75E-07 1.99E-06 2.80E-215 1.36E-62 7.47E-62 4.09E-61

AQUILA 4.08E-12 1.57E-08 7.01E-08 3.84E-07 1.33E-117 2.64E-65 1.44E-64 7.91E-64
BARNA 6.31E-17 1.83E-10 3.17E-10 1.36E-09 5.44E-139 3.14E-73 1.72E-72 9.41E-72
EQUIL 4.07E?00 4.95E?00 5.02E-01 6.09E?00 5.85E?04 2.24E?06 2.88E?06 1.38E?07
GRAD 3.77E-15 1.20E-12 2.79E-12 1.52E-11 5.53E-146 1.35E-113 7.40E-113 4.05E-112
HARRIS 4.41E-10 2.58E-07 5.70E-07 2.12E-06 9.89E-127 3.76E-60 1.88E-59 1.03E-58
MANTA 5.64E-26 1.52E-17 6.09E-17 3.29E-16 7.69E-223 3.42E-158 1.88E-157 1.03E-156
PRO 1.77E-34 4.35E-31 1.13E-30 5.23E-30 0.00E?00 4.10E-293 0.00E?00 1.21E-291
REPTILE 0.00E?00 8.95E-23 4.90E-22 2.68E-21 0.00E?00 3.02E-272 0.00E?00 9.06E-271
RUNGE 3.78E-05 2.04E-03 3.03E-03 1.08E-02 6.94E-50 1.06E-18 5.78E-18 3.17E-17
SNAKE 6.84E-04 7.28E-02 7.93E-02 3.25E-01 2.56E-29 1.40E-12 7.57E-12 4.15E-11

Problem f31- Schwefel 2.25 f32- Schwefel 2.20

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 3.57E?00 2.28E?01 1.69E?01 6.51E?01 9.76E-17 7.38E-08 1.95E-07 8.37E-07

AQUILA 1.35E-03 4.42E?00 9.52E?00 4.52E?01 3.22E-12 5.38E-06 1.62E-05 8.12E-05
BARNA 4.87E?02 4.91E?02 1.62E?00 4.93E?02 3.44E-12 6.22E-07 2.70E-06 1.47E-05
EQUIL 7.28E?02 1.47E?03 3.74E?02 2.28E?03 1.19E?02 1.54E?02 1.68E?01 1.92E?02
GRAD 2.16E-03 1.04E?00 1.41E?00 5.44E?00 4.50E-14 1.98E-11 3.47E-11 1.44E-10
HARRIS 5.93E-02 2.15E?00 2.04E?00 7.37E?00 3.14E-09 3.18E-05 7.14E-05 3.10E-04
MANTA 4.45E?02 4.59E?02 5.18E?00 4.69E?02 2.53E-21 1.79E-16 4.28E-16 1.87E-15
PRO 4.95E?02 4.98E?02 1.02E?00 4.99E?02 8.76E-33 2.83E-29 5.14E-29 2.33E-28
REPTILE 4.91E?02 4.97E?02 2.18E?00 4.99E?02 0.00E?00 2.66E-45 1.46E-44 7.97E-44
RUNGE 1.39E?02 1.56E?02 1.15E?01 1.87E?02 2.81E-05 7.09E-04 1.07E-03 4.89E-03
SNAKE 3.14E-02 6.86E?01 9.87E?01 3.56E?02 5.26E-02 1.48E?01 2.21E?01 6.94E?01

Problem f33- Streched Sine Wave f34- Powell

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 2.66E-08 2.92E-03 1.02E-02 5.47E-02 5.43E-53 4.94E-21 2.71E-20 1.48E-19

AQUILA 8.41E-04 5.31E-01 8.93E-01 3.87E?00 1.02E-25 1.41E-10 6.48E-10 3.50E-09
BARNA 8.73E-07 1.66E-03 3.66E-03 1.61E-02 1.26E-42 3.44E-23 1.35E-22 6.56E-22
EQUIL 1.84E?02 2.16E?02 1.62E?01 2.53E?02 1.63E-11 1.33E-02 4.14E-02 1.92E-01
GRAD 9.15E-07 2.01E-03 1.06E-02 5.81E-02 2.29E-36 3.06E-28 1.58E-27 8.68E-27
HARRIS 3.19E-02 2.25E-01 2.43E-01 8.68E-01 3.65E-30 2.50E-16 1.34E-15 7.37E-15
MANTA 1.52E-10 2.64E-03 1.44E-02 7.91E-02 5.13E-59 3.45E-50 1.24E-49 6.58E-49
PRO 8.82E-15 2.60E-09 1.18E-08 6.41E-08 1.25E-67 1.05E-59 5.69E-59 3.12E-58
REPTILE 0.00E?00 1.72E-13 7.94E-13 4.29E-12 0.00E?00 3.14E-41 1.67E-40 9.18E-40
RUNGE 4.83E-02 2.64E-01 1.73E-01 7.36E-01 2.16E-21 Inf NaN Inf
SNAKE 4.63E?00 4.90E?01 2.52E?01 1.08E?02 2.25E-06 Inf NaN Inf

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14321

Table 17 Ranking points of the algorithms assigned to the mean fitness results for 500D test functions
AFRICAN AQUILA BARNA EQUIL GRAD HARRIS MANTA PRO REPTILE RUNGE SNAKE

f1 6 7 5 11 4 8 1 1 1 9 10
f2 7 6 1 11 1 8 1 1 1 9 10
f3 7 1 1 11 1 8 1 1 1 9 10
f4 7 11 3 9 5 10 2 1 4 8 6
f5 6 4 3 11 8 7 5 1 2 9 10
f6 5 9 6 11 4 5 3 2 1 8 10
f7 5 6 7 11 3 8 2 1 4 9 10
f8 6 5 4 11 7 8 1 1 1 10 9
f9 5 1 6 11 2 3 8 9 10 7 4
f10 6 7 5 11 4 8 3 2 1 9 10
f11 8 7 5 11 4 6 1 2 3 9 10
f12 5 8 4 9 6 7 3 1 2 10 11
f13 7 3 2 11 6 4 5 1 8 10 9
f14 4 1 9 11 2 3 7 10 8 5 6
f15 6 3 4 11 8 7 9 1 2 10 5
f16 4 1 9 11 2 3 7 10 8 6 5
f17 4 6 8 11 2 3 5 10 7 9 1
f18 4 3 8 11 1 2 7 9 10 6 5
Average point 5.66 4.94 5.00 10.77 3.88 6.00 3.94 3.55 4.11 8.44 7.83
Ranking point 7 5 6 11 2 8 3 1 4 10 9
f19 7 6 5 11 4 8 3 2 1 9 10
f20 7 6 5 11 4 8 3 1 2 9 10
f21 5 8 6 9 4 7 2 1 3 11 10
f22 5 8 6 11 4 7 3 2 1 9 10
f23 5 6 7 11 4 8 3 2 1 9 10
f24 1 6 1 11 8 6 1 1 1 9 10
f25 5 3 8 11 1 2 7 8 8 6 4
f26 5 8 6 11 4 7 3 2 1 9 10
f27 4 3 6 11 5 2 1 7 8 8 8
f28 4 2 6 11 3 1 5 8 7 9 10
f29 7 6 5 11 4 8 3 1 2 9 10
f30 7 6 5 11 4 8 3 1 2 9 10
f31 4 3 8 11 1 2 7 10 9 6 5
f32 5 7 6 11 4 8 3 2 1 9 10
f33 6 9 3 11 4 7 5 2 1 8 10
f34 6 8 5 9 4 7 2 1 3 10 11
Average point 5.18 5.80 5.50 10.75 3.87 6.00 3.37 3.18 3.19 8.68 9.25
Ranking point 5 7 6 11 4 8 3 1 2 9 10
Overall point 5.43 5.34 5.23 10.76 3.88 6.00 3.67 3.37 3.68 8.55 8.49
Overall ranking point 7 6 5 11 4 8 2 1 3 10 9

4.4 Comparison on the runtime complexities
of the algorithms
This section is devoted to investigate the runtime com-
plexities of the algorithms on 30D unimodal and
multimodal test functions. This feature of any stochastic
metaheuristic algorithm should be thoroughly analyzed in
order to get clear insights on their general performances
when solving exhaustive and tedious optimization prob-
lems. Computational load burdened by the excessive run-
ning of the search equations of the metaheuristic

123
14322 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

Table 18 Performance comparison of the algorithms based on the ranking points obtained for the best results of 500D test functions
AFRICAN AQUILA BARNA EQUIL GRAD HARRIS MANTA PRO REPTILE RUNGE SNAKE

f1 1 7 6 11 1 8 1 1 1 9 10
f2 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 9 10
f3 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 9 10
f4 8 5 4 11 6 9 3 2 1 10 7
f5 4 6 5 11 7 8 3 2 1 10 9
f6 4 7 6 11 5 8 3 2 1 9 10
f7 5 7 6 11 4 8 3 2 1 9 10
f8 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 10 9
f9 5 1 8 11 4 2 7 9 10 6 3
f10 4 7 6 11 5 8 3 2 1 9 10
f11 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 9 10
f12 4 9 5 10 6 7 3 2 1 8 11
f13 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 10 9
f14 5 1 9 11 3 2 8 10 7 6 4
f15 1 1 1 11 8 7 1 1 1 10 9
f16 5 1 9 11 3 4 8 10 7 6 2
f17 4 7 6 11 2 3 5 10 8 9 1
f18 5 1 8 10 3 4 7 9 11 6 2
Average point 3.33 3.61 4.66 10.88 3.44 4.61 3.32 3.72 3.11 8.55 7.55
Ranking point 3 5 6 11 4 7 2 6 1 10 9
f19 5 7 4 11 6 8 3 2 1 9 10
f20 3 7 5 11 6 8 4 2 1 9 10
f21 4 8 6 10 5 7 3 2 1 9 11
f22 4 7 6 11 5 8 3 2 1 9 10
f23 4 7 5 11 6 8 3 2 1 9 10
f24 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 10 9
f25 5 4 8 11 2 1 7 8 8 6 3
f26 4 8 5 11 6 7 3 2 1 9 10
f27 5 1 6 11 3 2 4 9 8 7 10
f28 3 2 8 11 4 1 7 10 9 6 5
f29 4 7 5 11 6 8 3 2 1 9 10
f30 4 8 6 11 5 7 3 1 1 9 10
f31 5 1 8 11 2 4 7 10 9 6 3
f32 4 6 7 11 5 8 3 2 1 9 10
f33 4 7 5 11 6 8 3 2 1 9 10
f34 4 8 5 10 6 7 3 2 1 9 11
Average point 3.93 5.56 5.63 10.87 4.62 5.81 3.75 3.68 2.87 8.37 8.87
Ranking point 4 6 7 11 5 8 3 2 1 9 10
Overall point 3.61 4.52 5.11 10.88 4.00 5.17 3.52 3.70 3.00 8.46 8.17
Overall ranking point 3 6 7 11 5 8 2 4 1 10 9

algorithms needs to be deeply scrutinized if it is to hold a
firm opinion on the total expended runtime memory and
decide on as to which algorithms should be preferred for a
specific type of optimization problem. Figures 1 and 2
comparatively visualize the elapsed runtimes of each
contestant algorithm for each benchmark function. Total
number of 2000 function evaluations are performed for
unimodal and multimodal test functions and execution
times of the algorithms are averaged over 30 independent
runs.
It is seen from the figures that expanded computational
memory for unimodal and multimodal test functions is so

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14323

Table 19 Comparison of the competitive algorithms with respect to the statistical results of the 1000D multimodal test functions from f1 –Ackley
to f8—Schaffer
Problem f1- Ackley f2- Rastrigin
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 8.88E-16 2.05E-08 1.10E-07 6.04E-07 0.00E?00 9.16E-12 5.01E-11 2.75E-10

AQUILA 1.75E-12 6.21E-08 1.70E-07 7.81E-07 0.00E?00 6.86E-11 3.57E-10 1.96E-09
BARNA 4.44E-15 2.60E-09 8.90E-09 3.67E-08 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
EQUIL 3.06E?00 3.69E?00 2.48E-01 4.30E?00 5.79E?03 6.69E?03 5.89E?02 8.11E?03
GRAD 4.44E-15 7.45E-13 2.57E-12 1.42E-11 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
HARRIS 1.94E-10 2.45E-07 5.07E-07 2.72E-06 0.00E?00 8.41E-08 4.03E-07 2.21E-06
MANTA 8.88E-16 8.88E-16 0.00E?00 8.88E-16 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
PRO 8.88E-16 8.88E-16 0.00E?00 8.88E-16 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
REPTILE 8.88E-16 8.88E-16 0.00E?00 8.88E-16 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
RUNGE 1.27E-06 3.85E-05 8.64E-05 4.31E-04 2.49E-09 2.45E-03 1.08E-02 5.81E-02
SNAKE 6.19E-03 4.87E-01 5.54E-01 2.24E?00 1.31E-01 1.14E?03 1.03E?03 4.50E?03

Problem f3- Griewank f4- Zakharov

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 0.00E?00 3.33E-17 1.82E-16 9.99E-16 1.70E-03 1.18E?04 2.78E?04 1.56E?05

AQUILA 0.00E?00 2.32E-15 1.01E-14 5.50E-14 3.35E-11 3.20E?07 1.53E?08 8.38E?08
BARNA 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 1.01E-22 2.70E-12 1.26E-11 6.89E-11
EQUIL 4.69E-01 7.36E-01 1.09E-01 9.65E-01 9.09E?03 1.47E?05 3.61E?05 1.68E?06
GRAD 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 3.43E-03 1.79E?02 4.70E?02 2.11E?03
HARRIS 0.00E?00 4.04E-14 1.34E-13 5.41E-13 4.30E?03 2.59E?04 9.48E?03 3.44E?04
MANTA 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 4.04E-42 7.93E-32 2.48E-31 9.83E-31
PRO 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 2.22E-65 1.34E-54 4.40E-54 2.25E-53
REPTILE 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 3.14E-270 1.15E-02 3.14E-02 1.23E-01
RUNGE 3.54E-13 1.25E-09 2.95E-09 1.36E-08 1.72E?03 1.03E?04 7.92E?03 3.44E?04
SNAKE 2.16E-07 1.77E-02 5.40E-02 2.22E-01 6.96E-07 1.82E?00 4.60E?00 2.19E?01

Problem f5- Salomon f6- Alpine

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 2.03E-17 8.64E-05 3.24E-04 1.62E-03 1.77E-18 2.92E-05 1.59E-04 8.70E-04

AQUILA 7.77E-11 6.66E-03 2.54E-02 1.00E-01 1.36E-10 2.62E-03 9.77E-03 3.89E-02
BARNA 1.23E-14 4.52E-09 1.54E-08 8.04E-08 1.85E-16 2.28E-08 5.89E-08 2.22E-07
EQUIL 3.20E?00 3.92E?00 3.64E-01 4.60E?00 1.65E?02 2.16E?02 2.88E?01 2.74E?02
GRAD 2.53E-09 3.78E-02 4.85E-02 1.00E-01 3.78E-15 7.40E-12 1.72E-11 7.81E-11
HARRIS 2.05E-08 3.36E-03 1.82E-02 9.99E-02 1.26E-08 2.68E-06 3.82E-06 1.40E-05
MANTA 1.38E-20 6.84E-08 3.74E-07 2.05E-06 2.11E-22 2.81E-17 7.87E-17 4.25E-16
PRO 3.74E-33 2.00E-27 9.44E-27 5.17E-26 4.59E-33 1.59E-28 5.84E-28 2.82E-27
REPTILE 0.00E?00 2.47E-16 9.42E-16 4.22E-15 0.00E?00 7.65E-22 4.19E-21 2.29E-20
RUNGE 9.99E-02 1.24E-01 5.16E-02 3.00E-01 8.00E-06 4.28E-04 6.52E-04 2.69E-03
SNAKE 7.61E-03 4.21E-01 2.97E-01 1.14E?00 3.08E-02 7.88E-01 1.11E?00 5.77E?00

Problem f7- Csendes f8- Schaffer

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 7.90E-95 1.57E-40 8.52E-40 4.67E-39 0.00E?00 5.32E-10 2.49E-09 1.36E-08

AQUILA 6.50E-70 3.34E-42 1.82E-41 9.99E-41 0.00E?00 1.16E-13 5.96E-13 3.27E-12
BARNA 2.35E-94 7.83E-43 4.29E-42 2.35E-41 0.00E?00 2.29E-14 9.12E-14 4.94E-13
EQUIL 1.37E?04 7.18E?04 4.28E?04 2.19E?05 4.40E?02 4.51E?02 5.40E?00 4.64E?02
GRAD 6.08E-90 1.83E-62 1.00E-61 5.48E-61 0.00E?00 4.24E-13 1.87E-12 1.00E-11
HARRIS 4.63E-65 2.05E-30 1.12E-29 6.13E-29 0.00E?00 7.76E-07 4.25E-06 2.33E-05
MANTA 1.32E-123 3.80E-96 1.66E-95 8.78E-95 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
PRO 2.40E-209 2.10E-173 0.00E?00 6.30E-172 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
REPTILE 1.56E-278 5.14E-06 2.82E-05 1.54E-04 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00
RUNGE 3.92E-29 4.75E-13 1.46E-12 6.07E-12 3.50E?02 4.55E?02 1.99E?01 4.65E?02
SNAKE 1.97E-22 5.33E-04 2.10E-03 1.12E-02 1.52E-03 1.67E?01 2.72E?01 1.33E?02

123
14324 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

Table 20 Statistical comparison of the optimal results for 1000D multimodal test functions from f9 – Yang to f18—Levy
Problem f9- Yang2 f10- inverted cosine mixture
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 0.00E?00 1.79E-312 0.00E?00 5.36E-311 3.00E-37 2.15E-15 1.18E-14 6.44E-14

AQUILA 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 5.19E-22 9.42E-15 4.95E-14 2.71E-13
BARNA 4.32E-239 1.71E-138 9.22E-138 5.05E-137 3.58E-35 2.05E-14 1.11E-13 6.08E-13
EQUIL 1.75E-155 1.09E-132 5.77E-132 3.16E-131 3.17E?02 5.00E?02 8.13E?01 6.77E?02
GRAD 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 2.48E-29 7.34E-23 2.07E-22 1.10E-21
HARRIS 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 5.76E-22 3.42E-09 1.84E-08 1.01E-07
MANTA 4.77E-237 1.62E-176 0.00E?00 4.83E-175 3.15E-39 1.68E-29 9.16E-29 5.02E-28
PRO 6.31E-230 7.19E-161 3.94E-160 2.16E-159 4.54E-64 8.83E-58 3.49E-57 1.85E-56
REPTILE 1.76E-164 1.98E-140 7.95E-140 4.14E-139 0.00E?00 3.59E-69 1.97E-68 1.08E-67
RUNGE 1.39E-272 1.32E-187 0.00E?00 3.87E-186 8.42E-10 5.10E-05 2.60E-04 1.43E-03
SNAKE 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 1.18E-03 4.72E?00 1.30E?01 6.60E?01
Problem f11- Wavy f12- Yang1
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 0.00E?00 9.11E-10 4.22E-09 2.28E-08 6.95E-26 1.78E-07 7.78E-07 4.17E-06

AQUILA 0.00E?00 5.23E-15 2.54E-14 1.39E-13 1.14E-11 2.87E-05 6.44E-05 2.73E-04
BARNA 0.00E?00 8.07E-16 4.03E-15 2.21E-14 1.91E-18 9.68E-10 4.99E-09 2.73E-08
EQUIL 8.49E-01 9.43E-01 2.41E-02 9.69E-01 7.75E-12 2.91E-07 8.69E-07 4.77E-06
GRAD 0.00E?00 1.48E-16 7.92E-16 4.34E-15 1.99E-12 3.26E-06 1.13E-05 5.78E-05
HARRIS 0.00E?00 1.16E-11 3.05E-11 1.40E-10 1.24E-15 5.29E-06 2.06E-05 1.02E-04
MANTA 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 2.43E-24 3.21E-10 1.65E-09 9.03E-09
PRO 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 7.34E-34 1.60E-26 4.25E-26 1.59E-25
REPTILE 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 7.45E-19 2.26E-18 1.08E-17
RUNGE 1.29E-09 5.96E-06 2.80E-05 1.54E-04 N/A N/A N/A N/A
SNAKE 2.04E-04 4.46E-01 3.56E-01 9.75E-01 2.72E-05 N/A N/A N/A

Problem f13- Yang4 f14- Penalized1

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN - 1.00E?00 - 1.00E-01 3.05E-01 0.00E?00 5.69E-05 7.46E-03 1.19E-02 4.78E-02

AQUILA - 1.00E?00 - 5.63E-01 5.01E-01 0.00E?00 1.45E-07 2.43E-05 2.54E-05 9.62E-05
BARNA - 1.00E?00 - 8.46E-01 3.55E-01 0.00E?00 1.14E?00 1.16E?00 6.38E-03 1.17E?00
EQUIL 0.00E?00 8.40E-323 0.00E?00 2.51E-321 1.35E?00 1.52E?00 1.16E-01 1.82E?00
GRAD 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 4.17E-06 1.93E-04 2.73E-04 1.10E-03
HARRIS - 1.00E?00 - 2.54E-01 3.90E-01 0.00E?00 5.25E-06 6.10E-04 7.32E-04 2.74E-03
MANTA - 1.00E?00 - 3.43E-01 4.56E-01 0.00E?00 9.86E-01 1.03E?00 1.86E-02 1.06E?00
PRO - 1.00E?00 - 7.39E-01 3.62E-01 0.00E?00 1.16E?00 1.19E?00 7.92E-03 1.19E?00
REPTILE - 1.00E?00 - 6.67E-02 2.54E-01 0.00E?00 2.10E-01 1.04E?00 3.05E-01 1.19E?00
RUNGE 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 4.12E-02 5.61E-02 8.54E-03 7.38E-02
SNAKE - 5.04E-03 - 2.93E-04 1.02E-03 0.00E?00 1.70E-06 9.05E-02 2.10E-01 7.49E-01

Problem f15- Path f16- Quintic

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 0.00E?00 3.27E?00 9.95E?00 3.59E?01 1.17E?02 6.39E?02 4.54E?02 1.67E?03

AQUILA 0.00E?00 2.78E-03 1.52E-02 8.34E-02 4.96E-01 3.90E?01 3.60E?01 1.32E?02
BARNA 0.00E?00 1.71E-08 9.36E-08 5.13E-07 3.71E?03 3.85E?03 3.97E?01 3.89E?03
EQUIL 4.61E?02 4.71E?02 4.02E?00 4.77E?02 7.32E?03 1.33E?04 4.76E?03 2.75E?04
GRAD 0.00E?00 1.67E?01 7.16E?01 3.89E?02 1.15E?01 8.87E?01 6.71E?01 3.11E?02

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14325

Table 20 (continued)
Problem f15- Path f16- Quintic
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

HARRIS 6.40E-13 7.69E-01 4.07E?00 2.23E?01 2.02E?00 1.48E?02 1.10E?02 5.02E?02

MANTA 0.00E?00 9.43E?01 1.91E?02 4.74E?02 3.49E?03 3.60E?03 4.84E?01 3.69E?03
PRO 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 3.78E?03 3.88E?03 5.14E?01 3.94E?03
REPTILE 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 0.00E?00 1.95E?03 3.90E?03 3.75E?02 4.00E?03
RUNGE 3.97E?02 4.62E?02 1.59E?01 4.75E?02 1.05E?03 1.21E?03 7.81E?01 1.42E?03
SNAKE 9.78E-04 2.01E?01 8.56E?01 4.71E?02 3.75E?01 9.31E?02 1.07E?03 3.70E?03

Problem f17- Qing f18- Levy

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 2.82E?08 2.94E?08 4.07E?06 3.01E?08 3.37E-01 4.23E?00 5.58E?00 3.11E?01

AQUILA 2.89E?08 2.96E?08 1.97E?06 2.98E?08 5.19E-04 4.89E-01 7.80E-01 3.88E?00
BARNA 2.60E?08 2.69E?08 3.13E?06 2.74E?08 3.59E?02 3.65E?02 2.12E?00 3.69E?02
EQUIL 2.99E?08 3.00E?08 6.19E?05 3.02E?08 3.96E?02 4.92E?02 3.86E?01 5.82E?02
GRAD 2.47E?08 2.56E?08 6.15E?06 2.67E?08 3.25E-04 1.03E-01 1.61E-01 6.06E-01
HARRIS 2.56E?08 2.70E?08 6.32E?06 2.83E?08 2.77E-03 1.85E-01 2.52E-01 1.24E?00
MANTA 2.89E?08 2.93E?08 2.01E?06 2.96E?08 3.14E?02 3.23E?02 5.34E?00 3.35E?02
PRO 2.98E?08 2.99E?08 3.64E?05 3.00E?08 3.71E?02 3.74E?02 1.19E?00 3.75E?02
REPTILE 2.96E?08 2.97E?08 6.21E?05 2.98E?08 3.65E?02 3.73E?02 2.41E?00 3.75E?02
RUNGE 2.96E?08 2.99E?08 1.19E?06 3.00E?08 1.37E?01 1.68E?01 1.86E?00 2.12E?01
SNAKE 2.44E?08 2.51E?08 8.27E?06 2.79E?08 1.39E-03 1.71E?01 5.93E?01 3.24E?02

similar, which can be deduced from the runtimes of the
algorithms obtained for different problems. RUNGE algo-
rithm consumes a considerable amount of computational
memory as the general manipulation scheme of this algo-
rithm includes an excessive number of complementary and
well-tailored search equations which metaphorically mimic
the algorithmic steps of the Runge–Kutta differential
equation solver. Interested readers could examine the
governing search equations of the algorithms in the asso-
ciated sections of this study and comparatively investigate
on which algorithm requires the most competent manipu-
lation equations that burden the highest computational load
between them. RUNGE algorithm has the highest runtimes,
which takes four or five times longer to arrive the optimal
solution of the problem compared to the remaining algo-
rithms except BARNA algorithm on average. BARNA
algorithm is another relatively time-consuming algorithm,
which mainly resulted from the consistent employment of
randperm() function throughout the iterations responsible
for shuffling the current positions of the population mem-
bers. BARNA algorithm also requires an ascending sorting
of the population of individuals based on their respective
fitness values, which is another decisive factor explaining
the excessive computational time required to complete the
predefined number of iterations. As it is evident from the
figures, reaming algorithms accomplish the predefined
2000 function evaluations within the runtime band between
0.02 and 0.03 s, which is much quicker than that is elapsed
for the RUNGE and BARNA algorithms.
4.5 Evaluation on the convergence behavior
of the algorithms
Convergence curves give a provisional insight to the end
users on how quickly the algorithm reaches to its optimal
solution and provide a visual understanding of the ten-
dencies of the iterative declines in fitness values. Ongoing
evolution in the objective function value of an optimization
problem is directly related with the predefined number of
iterations, which means that any increase in the number of
iteration leads to an increase in the probability of reaching
the global optimum answer of the problem. A detailed
examination on the proclivities of convergence graphs
helps us to analyze the gradual decreases (or increases) in
objective function values of the employed optimization
problem, which is conducive to fully comprehend and
monitor the ruling search mechanism operated during the
course of iterations. General trend in the evolution of the
convergence curves is based on the sudden and rapid
changes in the early phases of iterations, which are

123
14326 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

Table 21 Comparison of the statistical results for 1000D unimodal test functions from f19 – Sphere to f26—Discus
Problem f19- Sphere f20- Brown
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 6.05E-34 4.05E-16 2.20E-15 1.20E-14 3.86E-34 1.11E-16 5.33E-16 2.92E-15

AQUILA 1.44E-22 1.10E-11 5.77E-11 3.16E-10 1.54E-23 2.56E-12 1.38E-11 7.58E-11
BARNA 1.09E-32 3.99E-16 1.56E-15 7.52E-15 7.17E-32 3.22E-14 1.68E-13 9.22E-13
EQUIL 2.68E?02 3.95E?02 6.49E?01 5.01E?02 4.00E?21 3.09E?73 1.69E?74 9.26E?74
GRAD 1.47E-29 6.93E-23 2.51E-22 1.26E-21 1.73E-27 4.89E-21 2.59E-20 1.42E-19
HARRIS 1.14E-17 2.74E-10 1.26E-09 6.89E-09 7.54E-19 1.22E-11 3.66E-11 1.97E-10
MANTA 1.45E-44 9.48E-34 3.67E-33 1.88E-32 5.76E-43 2.37E-33 8.42E-33 4.45E-32
PRO 5.50E-66 1.81E-57 9.59E-57 5.26E-56 9.70E-67 2.13E-57 6.78E-57 3.07E-56
REPTILE 0.00E?00 1.07E-41 5.86E-41 3.21E-40 0.00E?00 9.31E-41 4.85E-40 2.66E-39
RUNGE 1.00E-10 3.39E-07 8.80E-07 4.12E-06 1.79E-10 9.19E-06 4.31E-05 2.35E-04
SNAKE 8.88E-06 3.26E-01 9.32E-01 4.97E?00 9.06E-06 3.73E-01 8.45E-01 3.30E?00

Problem f21—Sum of difference f22- Bentcigar

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 2.24E-51 4.84E?200 Inf 1.45E?202 8.77E-26 4.49E-08 2.37E-07 1.30E-06

AQUILA 4.63E-23 1.45E-09 7.90E-09 4.33E-08 5.92E-17 5.20E-08 2.18E-07 1.14E-06
BARNA 9.35E-38 4.20E-20 2.29E-19 1.25E-18 3.22E-26 5.11E-09 2.49E-08 1.36E-07
EQUIL 1.76E-17 6.33E-09 2.95E-08 1.61E-07 2.52E?08 4.01E?08 6.03E?07 5.51E?08
GRAD 3.35E-28 4.38E-11 2.39E-10 1.31E-09 7.28E-23 6.38E-18 2.50E-17 1.36E-16
HARRIS 4.15E-30 4.90E-18 1.35E-17 5.38E-17 7.84E-12 1.78E-03 9.72E-03 5.32E-02
MANTA 3.39E-58 5.47E-48 2.18E-47 1.08E-46 7.83E-39 1.51E-25 8.16E-25 4.47E-24
PRO 3.62E-72 2.80E-59 1.45E-58 7.96E-58 2.40E-61 3.59E-52 1.88E-51 1.03E-50
REPTILE 0.00E?00 1.79E-40 9.39E-40 5.15E-39 0.00E?00 1.85E-44 1.02E-43 5.56E-43
RUNGE N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.45E-04 4.49E-01 1.42E?00 7.52E?00
SNAKE 5.25E-07 N/A N/A N/A 8.21E?01 3.76E?05 1.19E?06 6.52E?06

Problem f23- Sumsquares f24- Dropwave

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 3.69E-32 2.44E-11 9.65E-11 4.99E-10 - 1.00E?00 - 1.00E?00 6.96E-08 - 1.00E?00

AQUILA 6.51E-20 6.94E-11 3.44E-10 1.89E-09 - 1.00E?00 - 9.98E-01 1.31E-02 - 9.28E-01
BARNA 1.53E-26 2.05E-11 8.80E-11 4.63E-10 - 1.00E?00 - 1.00E?00 7.55E-12 - 1.00E?00
EQUIL 1.20E?05 1.91E?05 4.01E?04 2.77E?05 - 1.97E-03 - 1.42E-03 2.70E-04 - 8.90E-04
GRAD 4.84E-26 4.29E-20 1.66E-19 8.88E-19 - 1.00E?00 - 9.89E-01 2.42E-02 - 9.36E-01
HARRIS 1.21E-13 4.18E-09 1.28E-08 6.73E-08 - 1.00E?00 - 1.00E?00 5.00E-05 - 1.00E?00
MANTA 3.13E-40 1.65E-30 6.10E-30 2.62E-29 - 1.00E?00 - 1.00E?00 4.84E-09 - 1.00E?00
PRO 1.81E-64 2.46E-55 1.07E-54 5.82E-54 - 1.00E?00 - 1.00E?00 0.00E?00 - 1.00E?00
REPTILE 0.00E?00 1.87E-38 1.02E-37 5.61E-37 - 1.00E?00 - 1.00E?00 0.00E?00 - 1.00E?00
RUNGE 4.36E-09 1.61E-04 4.82E-04 2.51E-03 - 9.36E-01 - 9.36E-01 7.54E-11 - 9.36E-01
SNAKE 3.95E-02 2.63E?02 6.54E?02 3.20E?03 - 9.26E-01 - 3.59E-01 2.67E-01 - 2.35E-02

Problem f25- Rosenbrock f26- Discus

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 3.87E?02 9.20E?02 2.12E?02 1.37E?03 9.55E-32 1.41E-14 5.08E-14 2.45E-13

AQUILA 5.26E?00 7.04E?02 4.06E?02 9.89E?02 1.96E-17 9.90E-07 4.42E-06 2.37E-05
BARNA 9.99E?02 9.99E?02 2.36E-02 9.99E?02 7.04E-36 7.67E-16 3.81E-15 2.09E-14
EQUIL 1.35E?05 2.59E?05 6.49E?04 3.65E?05 3.67E?02 5.70E?02 9.64E?01 7.77E?02
GRAD 2.62E-01 2.29E?01 3.80E?01 1.68E?02 5.62E-27 2.27E-19 9.84E-19 5.26E-18
HARRIS 4.39E-01 2.39E?02 3.87E?02 9.90E?02 6.47E-20 1.06E-09 4.74E-09 2.60E-08
MANTA 9.98E?02 9.98E?02 8.07E-02 9.99E?02 8.13E-44 2.96E-31 1.58E-30 8.67E-30
PRO 9.99E?02 9.99E?02 1.57E-02 9.99E?02 3.95E-65 2.87E-55 1.18E-54 6.23E-54
REPTILE 9.99E?02 9.99E?02 9.63E-03 9.99E?02 0.00E?00 3.48E-75 1.91E-74 1.05E-73
RUNGE 9.93E?02 9.95E?02 1.91E?00 9.99E?02 5.46E-09 6.56E-06 1.58E-05 7.97E-05
SNAKE 1.24E?01 7.90E?02 3.73E?02 1.09E?03 1.33E-05 8.66E-01 2.86E?00 1.32E?01

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14327

Table 22 Comparison of the statistical results for 1000D unimodal test functions from f27 – Dixon-Price to f34—Powell
Problem f27- Dixon and Price f28- Trid
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 7.44E-01 9.90E-01 4.67E-02 1.00E?00 - 1.00E?06 - 4.52E?05 3.86E?05 2.47E?02

AQUILA 2.50E-01 8.52E-01 2.69E-01 1.00E?00 - 1.11E?06 - 9.77E?05 1.62E?05 - 1.28E?05
BARNA 9.98E-01 1.00E?00 4.00E-04 1.00E?00 9.87E?02 9.94E?02 2.89E?00 9.98E?02
EQUIL 1.17E?06 5.18E?06 2.10E?06 1.03E?07 2.79E?12 3.91E?12 6.87E?11 5.52E?12
GRAD 3.75E-01 9.63E-01 1.42E-01 1.00E?00 - 1.00E?06 - 8.94E?05 1.36E?05 - 5.53E?05
HARRIS 3.43E-01 9.78E-01 1.20E-01 1.00E?00 - 1.09E?06 - 9.92E?05 4.71E?04 - 8.62E?05
MANTA 6.76E-01 6.92E-01 1.53E-02 7.45E-01 9.36E?02 9.50E?02 7.28E?00 9.63E?02
PRO 1.00E?00 1.00E?00 3.14E-06 1.00E?00 9.94E?02 9.99E?02 1.34E?00 1.00E?03
REPTILE 9.11E-01 9.97E-01 1.62E-02 1.00E?00 9.97E?02 9.99E?02 7.88E-01 1.00E?03
RUNGE 9.96E-01 1.00E?00 7.65E-03 1.04E?00 5.05E?04 6.66E?06 2.13E?07 9.03E?07
SNAKE 1.11E?00 1.02E?02 1.69E?02 5.03E?02 - 9.98E?05 2.93E?08 9.09E?08 4.96E?09

Problem f29- Schwefel 2.21 f30- Schwefel 2.23

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 5.26E-20 2.47E-07 1.17E-06 6.38E-06 7.10E-177 3.59E-60 1.97E-59 1.08E-58

AQUILA 5.27E-14 1.24E-09 2.61E-09 1.09E-08 1.59E-127 3.78E-71 2.07E-70 1.13E-69
BARNA 6.57E-14 6.46E-10 1.80E-09 9.01E-09 5.75E-150 2.89E-76 1.25E-75 6.62E-75
EQUIL 4.80E?00 5.88E?00 4.50E-01 6.82E?00 2.38E?06 2.09E?07 1.72E?07 6.64E?07
GRAD 5.63E-16 2.34E-12 4.47E-12 1.80E-11 1.12E-147 3.18E-115 1.58E-114 8.62E-114
HARRIS 1.65E-10 7.54E-08 1.44E-07 5.88E-07 9.21E-104 4.44E-54 2.43E-53 1.33E-52
MANTA 5.45E-24 5.32E-18 1.67E-17 7.61E-17 4.52E-218 3.82E-169 0.00E?00 5.79E-168
PRO 1.21E-33 4.37E-31 1.00E-30 5.02E-30 0.00E?00 3.85E-296 0.00E?00 1.15E-294
REPTILE 0.00E?00 5.00E-21 2.74E-20 1.50E-19 0.00E?00 1.34E-161 7.33E-161 4.02E-160
RUNGE 1.35E-04 3.61E-03 4.88E-03 2.32E-02 9.15E-46 1.22E-19 6.69E-19 3.66E-18
SNAKE 5.40E-05 7.87E-02 1.29E-01 5.88E-01 7.79E-29 3.31E-08 1.65E-07 9.02E-07

Problem f31- Schwefel 2.25 f32- Schwefel 2.20

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 1.68E?01 5.73E?01 4.29E?01 2.16E?02 7.02E-17 1.00E-06 2.91E-06 1.20E-05

AQUILA 5.43E-02 2.16E?01 2.42E?01 7.25E?01 1.72E-09 2.56E-06 9.24E-06 4.81E-05
BARNA 9.83E?02 9.90E?02 2.47E?00 9.94E?02 4.13E-14 1.64E-07 5.02E-07 2.58E-06
EQUIL 2.46E?03 4.20E?03 1.39E?03 8.32E?03 2.80E?02 3.60E?02 3.44E?01 4.16E?02
GRAD 2.80E-03 1.72E?00 2.50E?00 1.18E?01 2.38E-13 3.52E-11 6.05E-11 2.53E-10
HARRIS 2.96E-02 5.17E?00 8.44E?00 4.40E?01 3.07E-10 1.68E-05 2.29E-05 9.97E-05
MANTA 9.40E?02 9.54E?02 6.47E?00 9.67E?02 3.07E-19 9.92E-16 1.99E-15 9.01E-15
PRO 9.94E?02 9.98E?02 1.01E?00 9.99E?02 5.17E-32 4.69E-28 1.11E-27 4.65E-27
REPTILE 9.95E?02 9.98E?02 8.19E-01 9.99E?02 0.00E?00 6.43E-39 3.50E-38 1.92E-37
RUNGE 3.06E?02 3.46E?02 2.61E?01 4.22E?02 2.50E-05 2.65E-03 5.56E-03 2.51E-02
SNAKE 9.64E-04 1.38E?02 2.67E?02 1.00E?03 6.50E-02 2.79E?01 3.46E?01 1.38E?02

Problem f33- Streched Sine Wave f34- Powell

Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 1.74E-08 3.65E-03 1.30E-02 6.96E-02 1.74E-46 N/A N/A N/A

AQUILA 9.73E-02 5.98E-01 8.71E-01 4.35E?00 2.64E-22 2.65E-10 1.09E-09 5.88E-09
BARNA 1.53E-06 1.11E-02 2.08E-02 7.01E-02 1.91E-41 3.40E-22 1.29E-21 6.93E-21
EQUIL 3.89E?02 4.31E?02 2.23E?01 4.67E?02 2.78E-19 2.17E-09 1.10E-08 6.05E-08
GRAD 3.30E-06 3.48E-02 7.29E-02 2.42E-01 8.64E-30 7.72E-08 3.84E-07 2.10E-06
HARRIS 3.51E-03 3.26E-01 3.08E-01 9.48E-01 1.89E-34 1.33E-16 4.96E-16 2.37E-15
MANTA 3.08E-10 3.65E-07 7.79E-07 3.91E-06 1.60E-59 2.27E-48 6.55E-48 2.99E-47
PRO 3.61E-15 8.88E-09 4.78E-08 2.62E-07 3.41E-71 1.12E-59 4.23E-59 2.13E-58
REPTILE 0.00E?00 3.16E-11 1.61E-10 8.80E-10 0.00E?00 2.01E-37 1.10E-36 6.04E-36
RUNGE 1.17E-01 5.37E-01 3.57E-01 1.53E?00 N/A N/A N/A N/A
SNAKE 2.27E?01 1.11E?02 7.95E?01 3.18E?02 2.81E-06 N/A N/A N/A

123
14328 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

Table 23 Ranking points of the compared algorithms for 1000D test functions relying on the best results of the predictions
AFRICAN AQUILA BARNA EQUIL GRAD HARRIS MANTA PRO REPTILE RUNGE SNAKE

f1 1 7 5 11 5 8 1 1 1 9 10
f2 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 9 10
f3 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 9 10
f4 7 5 4 11 8 10 3 2 1 9 6
f5 4 6 5 11 7 8 3 2 1 10 9
f6 4 7 5 11 6 8 3 2 1 9 10
f7 4 7 5 11 6 8 3 2 1 9 10
f8 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 10 9
f9 1 1 7 11 1 1 8 9 10 6 1
f10 4 7 5 11 6 8 3 2 1 9 10
f11 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 9 10
f12 3 9 5 8 7 6 4 2 1 11 10
f13 1 1 1 10 4 1 1 1 1 11 8
f14 5 1 9 11 3 4 8 10 7 6 2
f15 1 1 1 11 1 8 1 1 1 10 9
f16 5 1 9 11 3 2 8 10 7 6 4
f17 5 6 4 11 2 3 7 10 8 9 1
f18 5 2 8 11 1 4 7 10 9 6 3
Average point 3.00 3.61 4.27 10.78 3.55 4.61 3.57 3.77 3.00 8.72 7.33
Ranking point 1 5 7 11 3 8 4 6 1 10 9
f19 4 7 5 11 6 8 3 2 1 9 10
f20 4 7 5 11 6 8 3 2 1 9 10
f21 4 8 5 9 7 6 3 2 1 11 10
f22 5 7 4 11 6 8 3 2 1 9 10
f23 4 7 5 11 6 8 3 2 1 9 10
f24 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 9 10
f25 5 3 8 11 1 2 7 8 8 6 4
f26 5 8 4 11 6 7 3 2 1 9 10
f27 5 1 8 11 3 2 4 9 6 7 10
f28 3 1 7 11 4 2 6 8 9 10 5
f29 4 6 7 11 5 8 3 2 1 10 9
f30 4 7 5 11 6 8 3 2 1 9 10
f31 5 4 8 11 2 3 7 9 10 6 1
f32 4 8 5 11 6 7 3 2 1 9 10
f33 4 8 5 11 6 7 3 2 1 9 10
f34 4 8 5 9 7 6 3 2 1 11 10
Average point 4.06 5.68 5.43 10.75 4.87 5.69 3.62 3.56 2.81 8.87 8.68
Ranking point 4 7 6 11 5 8 3 2 1 10 9
Overall point 3.49 4.58 4.81 10.76 4.17 5.11 3.59 3.67 2.91 8.79 7.96
Overall ranking point 2 6 7 11 5 8 3 4 1 10 9

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14329

Table 24 Prediction performances of the algorithms based on the ranking points obtained for mean results of 1000D test functions
AFRICAN AQUILA BARNA EQUIL GRAD HARRIS MANTA PRO REPTILE RUNGE SNAKE

f1 6 7 5 11 4 8 1 2 3 9 10
f2 6 7 1 11 1 8 1 1 1 9 10
f3 6 7 1 11 1 8 1 1 1 9 10
f4 8 11 3 10 6 9 2 1 4 7 5
f5 5 7 3 11 8 6 4 1 2 9 10
f6 7 9 5 11 4 6 3 1 2 8 10
f7 6 5 4 11 3 7 2 1 9 8 10
f8 7 5 4 10 6 8 1 1 1 11 9
f9 5 1 10 11 1 1 7 8 9 6 1
f10 5 6 7 11 4 8 3 2 1 9 10
f11 8 6 5 11 4 7 1 1 1 9 10
f12 5 9 4 6 7 8 3 1 2 10 11
f13 6 3 1 11 9 5 4 2 8 9 8
f14 4 1 9 11 2 3 7 10 8 5 6
f15 6 4 3 11 7 5 9 1 2 10 8
f16 4 1 8 11 2 3 7 9 10 6 5
f17 6 7 3 11 2 4 5 9 8 10 1
f18 4 3 8 11 1 2 7 10 9 5 6
Average point 5.77 5.50 4.66 10.61 4.00 5.88 3.77 3.44 4.50 8.27 9.43
Ranking point 7 6 6 11 3 8 2 1 4 9 10
f19 6 7 5 11 4 8 3 1 2 9 10
f20 5 7 6 11 4 8 3 1 2 9 10
f21 9 7 4 8 6 5 2 1 3 10 11
f22 6 7 5 11 4 8 3 1 2 9 10
f23 6 7 5 11 4 8 3 1 2 9 10
f24 1 7 1 11 8 1 1 1 1 9 10
f25 5 3 8 11 1 2 7 9 10 6 4
f26 6 8 5 11 4 7 3 2 1 9 10
f27 5 2 7 11 3 4 1 8 6 9 10
f28 4 2 6 11 3 1 5 7 8 9 10
f29 8 6 5 11 4 7 3 1 2 9 10
f30 7 6 5 11 4 8 2 1 3 9 10
f31 4 3 8 11 1 2 7 9 10 6 5
f32 6 7 5 11 4 8 3 2 1 9 10
f33 4 9 5 11 6 7 3 2 1 8 10
f34 9 6 4 7 8 5 2 1 3 10 11
Average point 5.68 5.87 5.25 10.56 4.25 5.56 3.18 3.00 3.56 8.68 9.4
Ranking point 7 8 5 11 4 6 2 1 3 9 10
Overall point 5.72 5.67 4.93 10.58 4.11 5.73 3.49 3.23 4.05 8.46 9.41
Overall ranking point 7 6 5 11 4 8 2 1 3 9 10

controlled by the search schemes responsible for the
explorations mechanism. Next, variational declines in the
fitness values are administrated by the search mechanism
of the exploitation phase in which search agents focus on
the promising areas meticulously located in the previous
phase. In order to deeply analyze the convergence
performance of these eleven metaheuristic algorithms,
decreases in the fitness values are plotted against the
increasing number of iterations for 30D unimodal and
multimodal test problems, as depicted in Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8. The convergence curves for the compared algorithms are
illustrated in these figures, which are obtained for mean

123
14330 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

Fig. 1 Elapsed runtimes of the algorithms for 30D multimodal test functions

Fig. 2 Computational runtimes of compared algorithms for 30D unimodal test problems

values of 30 independent algorithm runs and 1000 function
evaluations. Figures 3, 4, 5 depict the convergence curves
plotted for 30D multimodal test functions by the eleven
metaheuristic optimizers. Compared algorithms show dif-
ferent convergence behaviors for different test functions.
REPTILE algorithm shows gradual decreases in the earliest
phases and completes iterations with rapid and sudden
declines for multimodal test functions of f1, f2, f3, f5, f6, f7,
f8, f10, f11, f12, and f15. This convergence behavior is the
direct result of the influences of search equations

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14331

Fig. 3 Evolution histories of the 30D multimodal problems from f1 – Ackley to f6- Alpine

Fig. 4 Evolution plots of the compared algorithms for 30D multimodal test functions from f7 -Csendes to f12 -Yang1

associated with the exploration mechanism in the early
stages, which is followed by the intensification on the
fruitful regions discovered in the preceding iterations. As
can be noticed from the search equation of REPTILE
algorithm, responsible search agents tend to probe the
domain around the so-far-obtained-best solutions, empha-
sizing the exploitation rather than exploration around the
unvisited regions of the search space. This tendency gives
rise to an acceleration in the general convergence speed of
the algorithm and results in a quick reach to the global
optimum point. However, this behavior may not be con-
ducive, even can be derogatory for some test instances as
seen from the evolution plots obtained for f14, f16, f17, and
f18 functions. Solution space of these benchmark problems

123
14332 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

Fig. 5 Convergence histories of the competitive algorithms for 30D multimodal test functions from f13-Yang4 to f18-Levy

Fig. 6 Iterative evolution of the fitness function values for 30D unimodal benchmark functions from f19-Sphere to f24-Dropwave

needs more inquisitive exploration instead of consistent
intensification of the promising regions, which explains the
relatively unsuccessful prediction performance of REP-
TILE for these test functions. Other remaining algorithms
perform stepwise and gradual decreases throughout the
iteration process for most of the multimodal test functions,
which indicates the exploration mechanism is more
dominant and prevalent for these algorithms. Too much
emphasis on probing around the feasible regions of the
search space entails not only redundant diversification on
the solution space, disregarding the necessary intensifica-
tion when it is needed but also consumes excessive amount
of computational resources, yielding to longer than
expected, and anticipated algorithm runtimes. If it is to

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14333

Fig. 7 Convergence plots for 30D unimodal test problems from f25-Rosenbrock to f30-Schwefel 2.23

Fig. 8 Evolution histories of the objective function values for test problems from f31-Schwefel 2.25 to f34-Powell

summarize the general convergence behavior of the algo-
rithms for multimodal test functions in a nutshell, when
overall convergence performance is averaged over the
eighteen test functions, it can be conveniently stated that all
compared algorithms can capitalize on the promising
search regions previously explored in the early iterations to
effectively pinpoint the exact locations of the optimum
solution of the problem for most of the cases.
Similar search tendencies are also observed for 30D
unimodal test functions whose convergence graphs are
visualized from Figs. 6, 7, 8. REPTILE algorithm is again
able to superiorly maintain a proper balance between

123
14334 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

Table 25 Error comparison of the algorithms with respect to the statistical results of CEC-2013 test functions
CEC 01 CEC 02
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN - 1.40E?03 - 1.40E?03 2.89E-07 - 1.40E?03 4.13E?06 1.12E?07 6.65E?06 4.02E?07

AQUILA - 1.39E?03 - 1.38E?03 9.56E?00 - 1.35E?03 2.68E?07 5.64E?07 1.63E?07 9.18E?07
BARNA 2.54E?04 3.28E?04 4.26E?03 4.14E?04 2.68E?08 4.73E?08 1.66E?08 9.73E?08
EQUIL - 1.40E?03 - 1.40E?03 2.63E-11 - 1.40E?03 2.49E?06 5.18E?06 1.45E?06 8.22E?06
GRAD 3.89E?02 3.49E?03 2.45E?03 9.26E?03 6.04E?07 1.66E?08 6.27E?07 3.19E?08
HARRIS - 1.40E?03 - 1.40E?03 9.92E-01 - 1.39E?03 1.35E?07 5.54E?07 5.80E?07 2.94E?08
MANTA - 1.40E?03 - 1.40E?03 9.06E-13 - 1.40E?03 3.72E?05 1.34E?06 6.31E?05 2.98E?06
PRO 3.49E?04 5.94E?04 9.53E?03 6.82E?04 2.21E?08 7.46E?08 3.27E?08 1.91E?09
REPTILE 1.88E?04 3.33E?04 9.49E?03 5.54E?04 1.43E?08 4.20E?08 1.47E?08 8.56E?08
RUNGE - 1.40E?03 - 1.40E?03 4.93E-04 - 1.40E?03 8.33E?05 3.04E?06 9.77E?05 5.26E?06
SNAKE 2.00E?04 3.04E?04 3.72E?03 3.74E?04 1.61E?08 5.09E?08 2.12E?08 9.47E?08

CEC 03 CEC 04
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 2.49E?07 8.85E?08 8.19E?08 2.95E?09 5.02E?04 5.66E?04 3.41E?03 6.50E?04

AQUILA 1.28E?10 3.23E?10 1.79E?10 8.83E?10 3.64E?04 4.85E?04 4.39E?03 5.64E?04
BARNA 4.95E?12 7.43E?14 2.03E?15 1.08E?16 4.48E?04 5.63E?04 3.88E?03 6.31E?04
EQUIL 8.60E?06 5.33E?08 4.97E?08 1.75E?09 1.27E?04 2.17E?04 4.60E?03 3.53E?04
GRAD 2.90E?10 2.38E?13 9.50E?13 5.02E?14 3.38E?04 5.02E?04 7.56E?03 6.34E?04
HARRIS 2.32E?09 2.14E?13 1.17E?14 6.41E?14 2.39E?04 3.39E?04 5.26E?03 4.60E?04
MANTA 5.95E?06 3.59E?08 5.06E?08 2.49E?09 3.05E?03 8.00E?03 3.54E?03 1.63E?04
PRO 5.04E?10 2.79E?19 1.52E?20 8.32E?20 5.12E?04 6.43E?04 6.31E?03 7.86E?04
REPTILE 9.68E?10 5.97E?14 2.38E?15 1.31E?16 4.69E?04 5.68E?04 5.07E?03 6.78E?04
RUNGE 4.04E?07 1.77E?09 2.40E?09 1.09E?10 - 8.42E?02 6.24E?01 8.03E?02 3.17E?03
SNAKE 1.18E?11 5.33E?15 1.41E?16 5.46E?16 5.30E?04 6.56E?04 4.17E?03 6.92E?04

CEC 05 CEC 06
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN - 1.00E?03 - 1.00E?03 1.03E-03 - 1.00E?03 - 8.93E?02 - 8.35E?02 2.75E?01 - 7.71E?02

AQUILA - 8.31E?02 - 6.35E?02 1.49E?02 - 1.51E?02 - 8.13E?02 - 7.08E?02 6.53E?01 - 5.51E?02
BARNA 6.12E?03 1.72E?04 5.56E?03 2.60E?04 1.43E?03 3.78E?03 1.20E?03 6.75E?03
EQUIL - 1.00E?03 - 1.00E?03 1.87E-07 - 1.00E?03 - 8.84E?02 - 8.49E?02 2.43E?01 - 8.19E?02
GRAD 7.00E?02 3.01E?03 1.62E?03 6.10E?03 - 4.74E?02 2.39E?02 8.17E?02 3.26E?03
HARRIS - 9.98E?02 - 9.96E?02 1.35E?00 - 9.93E?02 - 8.33E?02 - 5.49E?02 7.64E?02 2.48E?03
MANTA - 1.00E?03 - 1.00E?03 5.74E-13 - 1.00E?03 - 8.85E?02 - 8.52E?02 2.95E?01 - 8.06E?02
PRO 3.23E?04 1.23E?05 4.99E?04 2.01E?05 4.88E?03 1.52E?04 5.50E?03 2.53E?04
REPTILE 8.08E?03 4.85E?04 4.62E?04 1.50E?05 1.31E?03 3.46E?03 1.30E?03 6.29E?03
RUNGE - 1.00E?03 - 1.00E?03 1.43E-03 - 1.00E?03 - 8.84E?02 - 8.24E?02 3.77E?01 - 7.59E?02
SNAKE 8.50E?03 2.98E?04 1.14E?04 5.89E?04 1.71E?03 4.56E?03 1.51E?03 7.12E?03

CEC 07 CEC 08
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN - 7.31E?02 - 7.13E?02 2.11E?01 - 6.41E?02 - 6.79E?02 - 6.79E?02 7.90E-02 - 6.79E?02

AQUILA - 6.12E?02 9.12E?03 1.61E?04 6.35E?04 - 6.79E?02 - 6.79E?02 5.00E-02 - 6.79E?02
BARNA - 3.36E?02 2.97E?04 4.43E?04 1.66E?05 - 6.79E?02 - 6.79E?02 7.03E-02 - 6.79E?02
EQUIL - 7.85E?02 - 7.49E?02 1.89E?01 - 7.12E?02 - 6.79E?02 - 6.79E?02 4.22E-02 - 6.79E?02
GRAD - 6.04E?02 5.91E?03 1.52E?04 7.78E?04 - 6.79E?02 - 6.79E?02 7.11E-02 - 6.79E?02
HARRIS - 6.60E?02 2.93E?03 1.12E?04 6.00E?04 - 6.79E?02 - 6.79E?02 6.02E-02 - 6.79E?02
MANTA - 7.36E?02 - 6.95E?02 2.28E?01 - 6.36E?02 - 6.79E?02 - 6.79E?02 5.08E-02 - 6.79E?02
PRO - 3.43E?02 2.24E?06 1.01E?07 5.54E?07 - 6.79E?02 - 6.79E?02 5.66E-02 - 6.79E?02
REPTILE - 2.80E?02 1.74E?04 1.79E?04 6.26E?04 - 6.79E?02 - 6.79E?02 4.39E-02 - 6.79E?02
RUNGE - 7.37E?02 - 5.60E?02 1.97E?02 7.21E?00 - 6.79E?02 - 6.79E?02 3.68E-02 - 6.79E?02
SNAKE - 5.71E?02 6.69E?04 1.59E?05 8.00E?05 - 6.79E?02 - 6.79E?02 5.54E-02 - 6.79E?02

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14335

Table 26 Comparison of the error analysis results obtained for CEC-2013 test problems
CEC 09 CEC 10
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN - 5.82E?02 - 5.73E?02 4.55E?00 - 5.61E?02 - 4.99E?02 - 4.98E?02 1.78E?00 - 4.92E?02

AQUILA - 5.70E?02 - 5.61E?02 3.39E?00 - 5.56E?02 - 4.31E?02 - 3.15E?02 9.46E?01 - 8.20E?01
BARNA - 5.63E?02 - 5.58E?02 1.54E?00 - 5.55E?02 2.86E?03 3.82E?03 6.45E?02 5.30E?03
EQUIL - 5.83E?02 - 5.76E?02 4.38E?00 - 5.67E?02 - 4.99E?02 - 4.99E?02 2.13E-01 - 4.98E?02
GRAD - 5.64E?02 - 5.61E?02 2.16E?00 - 5.57E?02 1.81E?02 9.57E?02 5.12E?02 2.14E?03
HARRIS - 5.71E?02 - 5.63E?02 3.27E?00 - 5.58E?02 - 4.91E?02 - 4.36E?02 1.63E?02 3.79E?02
MANTA - 5.78E?02 - 5.70E?02 4.37E?00 - 5.62E?02 - 4.99E?02 - 4.99E?02 1.46E-05 - 4.99E?02
PRO - 5.62E?02 - 5.59E?02 1.43E?00 - 5.56E?02 4.24E?03 9.97E?03 2.96E?03 1.49E?04
REPTILE - 5.63E?02 - 5.60E?02 1.47E?00 - 5.57E?02 1.23E?03 4.40E?03 2.26E?03 1.45E?04
RUNGE - 5.75E?02 - 5.68E?02 2.78E?00 - 5.62E?02 - 4.99E?02 - 4.99E?02 1.49E-02 - 4.99E?02
SNAKE - 5.62E?02 - 5.58E?02 1.78E?00 - 5.56E?02 2.26E?03 3.99E?03 1.03E?03 6.26E?03
CEC 11 CEC 12
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN - 3.53E?02 - 3.10E?02 2.50E?01 - 2.41E?02 - 2.07E?02 - 1.36E?02 3.75E?01 - 7.41E?01

AQUILA - 7.60E?01 2.25E?01 5.72E?01 1.58E?02 1.55E?02 3.38E?02 1.14E?02 6.18E?02
BARNA 9.21E?01 1.94E?02 4.54E?01 2.64E?02 1.63E?02 2.68E?02 4.64E?01 3.34E?02
EQUIL - 3.68E?02 - 3.26E?02 3.35E?01 - 2.42E?02 - 2.49E?02 - 2.16E?02 2.53E?01 - 1.49E?02
GRAD - 1.21E?01 1.86E?02 1.08E?02 4.98E?02 6.23E?01 2.61E?02 9.35E?01 5.00E?02
HARRIS - 1.71E?02 - 4.65E?01 7.33E?01 1.34E?02 7.67E?01 2.91E?02 1.19E?02 4.69E?02
MANTA - 2.51E?02 - 1.62E?02 6.95E?01 1.59E?01 - 1.99E?02 1.71E?01 1.26E?02 3.19E?02
PRO 4.55E?02 6.84E?02 1.19E?02 8.66E?02 4.35E?02 7.64E?02 1.53E?02 9.52E?02
REPTILE - 1.36E?01 1.38E?02 7.36E?01 3.56E?02 1.30E?02 2.69E?02 7.61E?01 4.19E?02
RUNGE - 2.62E?02 - 4.77E?01 7.81E?01 8.95E?01 - 1.42E?02 3.66E?01 7.60E?01 1.90E?02
SNAKE 8.60E?01 2.90E?02 9.90E?01 4.84E?02 2.61E?02 3.98E?02 9.61E?01 5.57E?02

CEC 13 CEC 14
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN - 2.49E?01 5.58E?01 4.25E?01 1.23E?02 9.50E?02 2.14E?03 6.67E?02 3.78E?03

AQUILA 3.32E?02 4.94E?02 1.14E?02 6.98E?02 2.64E?03 4.05E?03 6.42E?02 5.10E?03
BARNA 2.09E?02 3.50E?02 4.96E?01 4.27E?02 7.18E?03 7.75E?03 3.19E?02 8.38E?03
EQUIL - 1.07E?02 - 4.79E?01 3.34E?01 7.98E?00 8.83E?02 1.94E?03 5.93E?02 3.32E?03
GRAD 1.53E?02 3.40E?02 1.03E?02 6.12E?02 5.50E?03 6.46E?03 6.32E?02 7.73E?03
HARRIS 2.64E?02 4.76E?02 1.24E?02 6.99E?02 2.20E?03 3.31E?03 6.89E?02 4.74E?03
MANTA 3.82E?01 1.31E?02 7.00E?01 3.15E?02 1.61E?03 2.89E?03 6.21E?02 4.44E?03
PRO 3.96E?02 8.15E?02 1.74E?02 1.04E?03 5.98E?03 8.13E?03 5.02E?02 8.89E?03
REPTILE 1.97E?02 3.55E?02 7.66E?01 5.29E?02 5.68E?03 6.99E?03 5.06E?02 8.06E?03
RUNGE 5.67E?01 2.40E?02 8.79E?01 4.36E?02 1.87E?03 2.70E?03 4.86E?02 3.61E?03
SNAKE 3.01E?02 4.82E?02 1.03E?02 7.04E?02 6.06E?03 7.59E?03 5.69E?02 8.71E?03

CEC 15 CEC 16
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 3.26E?03 4.26E?03 5.00E?02 5.19E?03 2.00E?02 2.01E?02 5.13E-01 2.02E?02

AQUILA 3.36E?03 4.80E?03 7.92E?02 6.33E?03 2.01E?02 2.02E?02 6.13E-01 2.03E?02
BARNA 6.75E?03 7.65E?03 3.94E?02 8.22E?03 2.02E?02 2.03E?02 4.06E-01 2.04E?02
EQUIL 3.15E?03 4.26E?03 6.66E?02 5.45E?03 2.01E?02 2.01E?02 3.69E-01 2.02E?02
GRAD 4.74E?03 6.65E?03 7.41E?02 7.88E?03 2.01E?02 2.02E?02 2.73E-01 2.02E?02

123
14336
Table 26 (continued)
CEC 15
Best Mean Std Dev
HARRIS 3.88E?03 4.83E?03 5.64E?02
MANTA 3.28E?03 4.29E?03 6.42E?02
PRO 6.79E?03 8.06E?03 4.34E?02
REPTILE 5.64E?03 7.19E?03 6.70E?02
RUNGE 3.00E?03 4.17E?03 9.91E?02
SNAKE 6.58E?03 7.85E?03 5.12E?02
exploration and exploration phases for standard unimodal
problems, which indicates that it is capable of eliminating
the local pitfalls located in the search domain and obtaining
the best estimations for the unimodal test functions of f19,
f20, f21, f22, f23, f24, f26, f29, f30, f33, and f34. This algorithm
continues to explore the search domain until to the point
where the maximum number of iterations is reached.
Nearly all algorithms have a suitable convergence speed
for unimodal test problems; however, they experience
some difficulties in converging to the optimal solution for
f25- Rosenbrock function, except for GRAD algorithm.
Rosenbrock test function is a challenging unimodal
benchmark case, frequently used for assessing the opti-
mization capabilities of the stochastic algorithm, whose
global optimum point resides in a long, narrow, parabolic-
shaped valley, which is very hard to locate by any type of
optimization algorithm. Neither of the algorithms is able to
converge the global optimum answer of the f27-Dixon and
Price test function, which is another compelling test case
for the algorithms. Again nearly all optimizers fail to arrive
the optimal solution of f32-Schwefel 2.25 function and tend
to be trapped in local solutions except GRAD algorithm,
which shows consistent and stepwise decreases throughout
the iterations. All compared algorithms prematurely con-
verged to one of the many local optimum points of the f28-
Trid function, showing no clear sign of balance between
the complementary exploration and exploitation phases.
4.6 Performance assessment on CEC-2013
benchmark problems
This section comparatively investigates the performance of
the eleven metaheuristic algorithms by evaluating their
prediction accuracies on a test suite of twenty-eight thirty-
dimensional benchmark functions employed in CEC-2013
competitions. Multidimensional test functions taking place
in CEC competitions are artificially generated benchmark
cases composed of shifted, rotated, highly multimodal, and
discontinuous benchmark problems that are most likely to
simulate the challenges and difficulties posed by real-world
123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
CEC 16
Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst
6.16E?03 2.01E?02 2.02E?02 3.25E-01 2.03E?02
5.84E?03 2.01E?02 2.02E?02 4.71E-01 2.03E?02
8.76E?03 2.02E?02 2.03E?02 3.57E-01 2.04E?02
8.29E?03 2.02E?02 2.03E?02 4.78E-01 2.03E?02
6.96E?03 2.01E?02 2.03E?02 4.08E-01 2.03E?02
8.64E?03 2.02E?02 2.03E?02 4.95E-01 2.04E?02
optimization problems. They have been consistently
employed by metaheuristic algorithm developers to assess
their proposed optimizers. When the mathematical char-
acteristics of these test functions are carefully examined in
detail, problems belonging to the test suite used in the
competitions organized in 2013, 2014, and 2015 are very
much similar; only negligible functional nuances make the
difference between them. Test functions utilized in events
occurring after 2017 consist of multi-objective or con-
strained benchmark cases; those are not the main concern
of the related section dealing with solving unconstrained
optimization problems. Therefore, the authors consider the
twenty-eight test functions for performance evaluation of
the compared algorithms.
Similar to the previous cases, exhaustive comparisons
between the competitive algorithms have been realized by
recording the error results of the predictions in terms of
best, mean, worst, and standard deviation values for each
benchmark function in the suite. Population size of each
algorithm is set to N = 20 and the total number of 3000
iterations are performed for each algorithm for each test
function. Statistical results are obtained after 50 indepen-
dent algorithm runs. For all problems, the size of the 30D
search space is restricted between the lower bound of -100
and the upper bound of 100. During the numerical exper-
iments, the same algorithm parameters have been consid-
ered for the competitive algorithms as it was previously
utilized for thirty-four unconstrained test functions. As it
was mentioned, the competitive algorithms have been run
many times, and their prediction capabilities on twenty-
eight test functions composed of unimodal, multimodal,
and have been evaluated in terms of well-organized per-
formance metrics. Optimization performance of the algo-
rithms is compared between each other with respect to the
statistical results obtained after the consecutive algorithm
runs. Furthermore, the Friedman mean ranks for each
optimized test function are tabulated in the respective
tables to decide the degree of statistical significance
between the algorithms. Similarly, the convergence ten-
dencies of the algorithms have been evaluated and
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14337

Table 27 Statistical results of the compared algorithms for CEC 2013 test problems
Problem CEC 17 CEC 18
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 3.80E?02 4.25E?02 2.09E?01 4.79E?02 4.84E?02 5.25E?02 2.67E?01 6.24E?02

AQUILA 6.15E?02 7.43E?02 7.04E?01 9.34E?02 6.66E?02 8.35E?02 6.95E?01 1.04E?03
BARNA 8.69E?02 9.47E?02 5.01E?01 1.10E?03 9.41E?02 1.03E?03 5.35E?01 1.11E?03
EQUIL 3.53E?02 4.21E?02 4.13E?01 5.24E?02 4.72E?02 5.13E?02 2.71E?01 5.69E?02
GRAD 7.79E?02 9.33E?02 8.34E?01 1.08E?03 8.73E?02 1.05E?03 1.05E?02 1.23E?03
HARRIS 6.91E?02 8.40E?02 6.05E?01 9.90E?02 7.68E?02 9.32E?02 7.92E?01 1.07E?03
MANTA 4.87E?02 6.82E?02 1.11E?02 9.72E?02 6.19E?02 7.87E?02 1.22E?02 1.15E?03
PRO 1.05E?03 1.28E?03 7.70E?01 1.39E?03 1.21E?03 1.41E?03 5.62E?01 1.48E?03
REPTILE 7.34E?02 9.11E?02 8.68E?01 1.09E?03 8.07E?02 1.02E?03 1.11E?02 1.36E?03
RUNGE 5.16E?02 7.26E?02 1.21E?02 9.42E?02 7.18E?02 8.21E?02 7.62E?01 9.81E?02
SNAKE 9.09E?02 1.14E?03 7.69E?01 1.25E?03 1.06E?03 1.21E?03 7.38E?01 1.32E?03
CEC 19 CEC 20
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 5.03E?02 5.07E?02 2.58E?00 5.17E?02 6.11E?02 6.12E?02 2.32E-01 6.12E?02

AQUILA 5.27E?02 5.41E?02 9.54E?00 5.68E?02 6.12E?02 6.12E?02 2.75E-01 6.13E?02
BARNA 2.43E?04 9.60E?04 6.24E?04 3.36E?05 6.12E?02 6.12E?02 2.71E-01 6.13E?02
EQUIL 5.03E?02 5.09E?02 4.16E?00 5.23E?02 6.08E?02 6.09E?02 5.10E-01 6.10E?02
GRAD 1.17E?03 1.69E?04 2.65E?04 1.35E?05 6.11E?02 6.12E?02 3.77E-01 6.13E?02
HARRIS 5.26E?02 5.42E?02 1.05E?01 5.77E?02 6.11E?02 6.12E?02 2.74E-01 6.12E?02
MANTA 5.06E?02 5.17E?02 5.76E?00 5.31E?02 6.10E?02 6.11E?02 5.41E-01 6.12E?02
PRO 7.76E?05 1.44E?06 3.56E?05 1.97E?06 6.12E?02 6.13E?02 2.62E-01 6.13E?02
REPTILE 8.53E?03 3.25E?05 3.30E?05 1.53E?06 6.11E?02 6.12E?02 5.46E-01 6.13E?02
RUNGE 5.34E?02 5.57E?02 1.42E?01 5.83E?02 6.10E?02 6.11E?02 5.44E-01 6.12E?02
SNAKE 8.53E?04 2.79E?05 1.25E?05 5.15E?05 6.12E?02 6.13E?02 2.91E-01 6.13E?02

CEC 21 CEC 22
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 1.00E?03 1.07E?03 4.66E?01 1.10E?03 1.64E?03 2.94E?03 6.43E?02 4.35E?03

AQUILA 1.04E?03 1.08E?03 2.31E?01 1.11E?03 3.84E?03 4.97E?03 6.97E?02 6.30E?03
BARNA 2.76E?03 2.90E?03 7.07E?01 3.05E?03 7.93E?03 8.71E?03 3.83E?02 9.34E?03
EQUIL 1.00E?03 1.02E?03 4.30E?01 1.10E?03 2.05E?03 3.05E?03 6.06E?02 4.18E?03
GRAD 1.48E?03 2.13E?03 4.43E?02 2.81E?03 5.49E?03 7.25E?03 7.59E?02 8.50E?03
HARRIS 1.02E?03 1.06E?03 3.74E?01 1.10E?03 2.82E?03 4.47E?03 8.31E?02 6.26E?03
MANTA 8.00E?02 1.00E?03 8.09E?01 1.10E?03 2.88E?03 4.00E?03 7.15E?02 5.97E?03
PRO 3.31E?03 3.43E?03 4.83E?01 3.47E?03 7.97E?03 9.07E?03 4.73E?02 1.02E?04
REPTILE 2.82E?03 3.03E?03 1.33E?02 3.27E?03 6.72E?03 7.98E?03 5.67E?02 8.83E?03
RUNGE 1.00E?03 1.08E?03 4.04E?01 1.10E?03 2.87E?03 3.73E?03 4.72E?02 5.22E?03
SNAKE 2.77E?03 2.94E?03 8.22E?01 3.12E?03 7.46E?03 8.60E?03 5.11E?02 9.64E?03

CEC 23 CEC 24
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 3.90E?03 5.60E?03 7.26E?02 7.02E?03 1.24E?03 1.28E?03 1.83E?01 1.31E?03

AQUILA 4.92E?03 6.12E?03 5.98E?02 7.37E?03 1.32E?03 1.36E?03 7.26E?01 1.65E?03
BARNA 7.81E?03 8.57E?03 4.31E?02 9.33E?03 1.34E?03 1.35E?03 1.00E?01 1.37E?03
EQUIL 3.80E?03 4.93E?03 6.42E?02 6.13E?03 1.22E?03 1.25E?03 1.77E?01 1.29E?03
GRAD 6.46E?03 7.80E?03 6.66E?02 9.15E?03 1.30E?03 1.33E?03 1.60E?01 1.36E?03

123
14338 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

Table 27 (continued)
CEC 23 CEC 24
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

HARRIS 4.47E?03 5.78E?03 6.62E?02 6.89E?03 1.30E?03 1.33E?03 1.52E?01 1.37E?03

MANTA 3.83E?03 4.95E?03 6.11E?02 6.37E?03 1.26E?03 1.29E?03 1.43E?01 1.32E?03
PRO 8.42E?03 9.03E?03 3.31E?02 9.93E?03 1.32E?03 1.39E?03 8.15E?01 1.74E?03
REPTILE 6.61E?03 7.94E?03 7.18E?02 9.01E?03 1.33E?03 1.36E?03 1.47E?01 1.39E?03
RUNGE 3.23E?03 4.65E?03 7.43E?02 6.21E?03 1.27E?03 1.29E?03 1.26E?01 1.31E?03
SNAKE 7.84E?03 8.84E?03 3.73E?02 9.46E?03 1.31E?03 1.34E?03 1.70E?01 1.38E?03

Fig. 9 Convergence graphs for CEC-2013 test problems from first to sixth test instances

compared through the evolution curves of the objective
functions visualized in descriptive graphs. First and fore-
most, the optimization abilities of the compared methods
have been evaluated by performing 50 runs on unimodal
test functions, which are famous for having only one
minimum or maximum point residing a relatively large
search domain. A successful algorithm is the one having
the ability to circumvent the trapping local extremum
points and arrive to the global optimum point. Potential
local optimum points dramatically increases with increas-
ing problem dimensionalities, which makes them appro-
priate test beds for evaluating the exploration capabilities
of the algorithms. According to the comparative optimum
results obtained for unimodal test functions from CEC-01
to CEC-05 given in Table 25, MANTA achieves the best
predictions while RUNGE algorithm occupying the second
best seat. MANTA obtains the best optimum solutions of
four out of five unimodal test functions becomes the best
performer for unimodal functions. When general perfor-
mance analysis of the compared algorithms is founded
upon the multimodal test functions whose predictions
results are given in a tabular form from Tables 25, 26, 27, a
clear dominance of EQUIL algorithm is evident in most of
the test instances as it obtains the most accurate estimations
in eleven out of fourteen benchmark cases and significantly
surpasses the remaining algorithms in terms of solution
accuracy. AFRICAN algorithm attains the second-best
predictions for multimodal test functions. It is also

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14339

Fig. 10 Convergence histories of the algorithms for multimodal test problems employed in CEC 2013 competition

Fig. 11 Evolution histories of the compared algorithms for multimodal test function of CEC 2013 optimization benchmark problems

observed that MANTA algorithm is the third-best method
providing closer results to the global optimum points of the
test functions. Experimental results indicate that EQUIL
can effectively elude from the deceitful local stalls with a
higher convergence rate, as it is seen from the evolution
trends of the objective function value depicted from Fig. 9,
10, 11, 12. One can easily interpret from the figures that the
vibrant fluctuations in convergence curves are the direct
outcomes of the dominant exploration phase activated in
AFRICAN algorithm, in which responsible search agents
roam around the feasible domain to explore the unvisited
regions, resulting in the shock and sudden changes in fit-
ness values. It is also worth to mention that success of
EQUIL algorithm is the direct influences of the balanced

123
14340
Fig. 12 Comparison of the convergence performance of the algorithms based on the composition function employed in CEC 2013 competition
search mechanisms of the exploration and exploitation.
Feasible predictive solutions of the composite test func-
tions are reported in Tables 27 and 28. Composite bench-
mark problems combines the functional characteristics of
the forming sub-functions whose successful and accurate
solutions require a well-organized task division between
local and global search mechanisms. Predictive results for
composite function show that EQUIL has the best quality
of estimations providing the lowest erroneous results and
obtains the best answers of six out of nine problems.
AFRICAN and MANTA algorithms correspondingly
shares the second- and third-best seats for composite test
functions When convergence curves constructed for the
composite test functions are carefully investigated in
Figs. 12 and 13, faster convergence to the optimum point
for EQUIL algorithm is valid in most of the problem
instances, which also verifies the superiority of this algo-
rithm in the diversification of the candidate solutions as
much as possible. It is also interesting the see the collapse
of REPTILE and PRO algorithms in all departments of
CEC test functions, which are indisputable victorious
optimizers for standard unimodal and multimodal test
problems. This failure can be attributed to the fact that
governing search equations of these two algorithms are
mainly controlled by the so-far obtained best solution
throughout the iterations, which can sometimes overem-
phasize intensification on the regions where current best
search agents are located rather than probing around the
unexplored areas in which possible promising answers are
123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
occupied. In addition, the glamorous success of the EQUIL
algorithm for CEC 2013 test functions can be conceived as
contradictive and confusing based on its relatively poor
performance on standard unconstrained problems. Search
equations of EQUIL algorithm are designed and tailored in
such an intrinsic way that they collaboratively as a whole,
put too much emphasis on exploration over undiscovered
areas and tend to disregard intensification on the promising
regions at certain stages of the iterations. This behavior
results in a time-consuming search process accompanied
with redundant memory usage without showing any sign of
proceeding to the optimal results due to the unorganized
balance between active exploration and exploitation
mechanisms. Average rankings of the algorithms according
to the Friedman results have been reported and compared
against each other in Table 29. The lesser ranking point
corresponds to the better optimization performance of the
algorithm. Robustness and accuracy of EQUIL algorithm is
undeniably confirmed since it attains the best average
ranking point among the other algorithms with the
respective p-value of 5.91E-08.
5 Comprehensive benchmark analysis
on real-world engineering problems
This section analyzes the optimization performances of the
investigated metaheuristic optimizers by applying them to
some selected constrained engineering design optimization
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14341

Table 28 Prediction accuracies of the eleven compared metaheuristic algorithms

CEC 25 CEC 26
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 1.41E?03 1.42E?03 1.09E?01 1.45E?03 1.40E?03 1.42E?03 5.32E?01 1.56E?03

AQUILA 1.42E?03 1.47E?03 3.18E?01 1.56E?03 1.40E?03 1.56E?03 8.64E?01 1.61E?03
BARNA 1.44E?03 1.46E?03 1.47E?01 1.49E?03 1.43E?03 1.51E?03 7.68E?01 1.63E?03
EQUIL 1.34E?03 1.38E?03 1.59E?01 1.41E?03 1.40E?03 1.50E?03 7.02E?01 1.56E?03
GRAD 1.44E?03 1.46E?03 1.85E?01 1.51E?03 1.40E?03 1.51E?03 9.37E?01 1.61E?03
HARRIS 1.41E?03 1.46E?03 1.84E?01 1.49E?03 1.40E?03 1.49E?03 1.00E?02 1.61E?03
MANTA 1.39E?03 1.41E?03 1.32E?01 1.44E?03 1.40E?03 1.40E?03 2.17E-02 1.40E?03
PRO 1.44E?03 1.46E?03 1.44E?01 1.50E?03 1.41E?03 1.54E?03 7.33E?01 1.62E?03
REPTILE 1.47E?03 1.48E?03 8.61E?00 1.50E?03 1.42E?03 1.47E?03 2.75E?01 1.52E?03
RUNGE 1.40E?03 1.43E?03 1.23E?01 1.46E?03 1.40E?03 1.40E?03 1.66E-02 1.40E?03
SNAKE 1.42E?03 1.44E?03 1.28E?01 1.48E?03 1.42E?03 1.53E?03 8.40E?01 1.62E?03
CEC 27 CEC 28
Best Mean Std Dev Worst Best Mean Std Dev Worst

AFRICAN 2.09E?03 2.33E?03 1.26E?02 2.62E?03 1.50E?03 2.22E?03 9.27E?02 4.57E?03

AQUILA 2.56E?03 2.76E?03 1.12E?02 2.99E?03 5.45E?03 6.36E?03 4.29E?02 7.19E?03
BARNA 2.67E?03 2.79E?03 6.79E?01 2.93E?03 5.31E?03 5.80E?03 3.31E?02 6.40E?03
EQUIL 1.92E?03 2.12E?03 7.51E?01 2.25E?03 1.50E?03 1.78E?03 4.15E?02 3.34E?03
GRAD 2.57E?03 2.70E?03 8.26E?01 2.84E?03 4.16E?03 6.14E?03 7.02E?02 7.58E?03
HARRIS 2.54E?03 2.69E?03 9.23E?01 2.92E?03 4.14E?03 6.07E?03 5.83E?02 7.08E?03
MANTA 2.26E?03 2.48E?03 1.17E?02 2.70E?03 1.50E?03 3.91E?03 1.28E?03 5.34E?03
PRO 2.64E?03 2.78E?03 8.95E?01 3.00E?03 6.06E?03 8.51E?03 1.46E?03 1.07E?04
REPTILE 2.67E?03 2.79E?03 6.34E?01 2.91E?03 5.04E?03 6.04E?03 4.19E?02 6.90E?03
RUNGE 2.29E?03 2.43E?03 7.79E?01 2.62E?03 4.26E?03 4.86E?03 3.56E?02 5.90E?03
SNAKE 2.49E?03 2.75E?03 1.09E?02 2.93E?03 4.82E?03 6.19E?03 6.91E?02 7.70E?03

problems and comparing the outcomes. Fourteen different
engineering design optimization problems have been
selected with various decision variable, constraint, and
objective function characteristics and feasible solutions
obtained from Runge Kutta Optimizer (RUNGE), Gradi-
ent-based Optimizer (GRAD), Poor and Rich Optimization
Algorithm (PRO), Reptile Search Algorithm (REPTILE),
Snake Optimizer (SNAKE), Equilibrium Optimizer
(EQUIL), Manta Ray Foraging Optimization (MANTA),
African Vultures Optimization Algorithm (AFRICAN),
Aquila Optimizer (AQUILA), and Harris Hawks Opti-
mization (HARRIS) are benchmarked against each other.
Barnacles Mating Optimizer (BARNA) have not been
included into the comprehensive comparative investiga-
tions as it is not able to find any feasible solutions during
the consecutive and independent runs for each considered
engineering design problem, collapses at some certain
stages of the iterations. There are lots of alternative con-
strained benchmark cases concerning real-world
engineering problems available in literature studies.
Majority of the engineering design problems that have been
frequently employed for benchmarking the optimization
accuracy of the developed algorithm were utilized in CEC
2020 competitions [118], including a set of fifty-seven
challenging constrained engineering problems. These
problems can capture a wide range of difficulties that is
highly possible to be posed by the challenges of real-world
problems. In CEC’20 competition, state-of-art optimizers
proposed by the participants were exhaustively tested on
these synthetic benchmark cases. Another comprehensive
reference providing a comprehensive database is conducted
by Floudas et al. [92], reflecting their long-term efforts in
designing challenging test instances composed of non-
convex optimization problems with varying degrees of
difficulty. After a comprehensive investigation on the past
literature studies related to solving constrained optimiza-
tion problems, the authors of this study choose the most
widely employed fourteen complex engineering design

123
14342
Fig. 13 Convergence graphs constructed for composition test functions employed in CEC 2013 competition
cases, which were also previously utilized in CEC’2020
[118] and Floudas et al.[92].
All the above-mentioned algorithms are developed and
run in MATLAB programming environment on the same
personal computer that has been utilized to accomplish the
previous benchmarking studies. The algorithms have been
independently run 50 times for each engineering design
problem, and the outcomes have been statistically evalu-
ated in terms of the best, worst, mean, and standard devi-
ation of the acquired solutions. The maximization problems
have been transformed into minimization problems by
multiplying the objective function with a minus. The
equality constraints in the optimization problems have been
converted to inequality constraints by jhð xÞj  e  0, in
which e is taken as 1E-10. The Inverse Tangent Con-
strained Handling method [119] has been employed to deal
with the constraints during the optimization process. An
optimization problem can be mathematically represented as
follows,
arg min f ðx x2S
~Þ; ~ RD
with subject to ð122Þ
D
gð~
xÞ  0; gi : R ! R; i ¼ 1; 2; :::; k
where f(x) is the objective function, ~x is the design vari-
ables, D is the number of dimensions, S is the search space,
and g(x) is the inequality constraints. In the Inverse Tan-
gent Constrained Handling method, the infeasible regions
123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
in the search space are disregarded through the following
adjustment made to the objective function,
8
< hmax ð~ xÞ if hmax ð~
xÞ [ 0
min f ð~
xÞ ¼ p ð123Þ
: atan½f ð~
xÞ  otherwise
2
where
hmax ð~
xÞ ¼ max½h1 ð~
xÞ; h2 ð~
xÞ; :::; hk ð~
xÞ ð124Þ
where atan() is the arctangent function. Table 30 reports
the functional properties and the maximum number of
function evaluations performed to solve each engineering
design optimization problem. D represents the number of
decision variable dimensions, gnum and hnum, respectively,
represent the number of inequality and equality constraints
in the problem, and NFE stands for the maximum number
of function evaluations in Table 30. Total number of
function evaluations assigned for a particular problem is
directly associated with its functional complexity; that is, a
design problem having a nonlinear objective function and
having a high number of imposed design constraints would
necessitate a high number of function evaluations to suc-
cessfully reach its global optimum solution. Based on the
functional characteristics and challenging degree of the
problem, a different number of function evaluations are
utilized. Therefore, the authors consider a similar perfor-
mance criterion previously employed in their past effort on
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14343

Table 29 Performance rankings of the algorithms based on the mean deviation results of fifty independent runs
AFRICAN AQUILA BARNA EQUIL GRAD HARRIS MANTA PRO REPTILE RUNGE SNAKE

CEC-01 1 6 9 1 7 1 1 11 10 1 8
CEC-02 4 6 9 3 7 5 1 11 8 2 10
CEC-03 3 5 9 2 7 6 1 11 8 4 10
CEC-04 8 5 7 3 6 4 2 10 9 1 11
CEC-05 1 6 8 1 7 5 1 11 10 1 9
CEC-06 3 5 9 2 7 6 1 11 8 4 10
CEC-07 2 7 9 1 6 5 3 11 8 4 10
CEC-08 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CEC-09 2 6 10 1 6 5 3 9 8 4 10
CEC-10 4 6 8 1 7 5 1 11 10 1 9
CEC-11 2 6 9 1 8 5 3 11 7 4 10
CEC-12 2 9 6 1 5 8 3 11 7 4 10
CEC-13 2 10 6 1 5 8 3 11 7 4 9
CEC-14 2 6 10 1 7 5 4 11 8 3 9
CEC-15 2 5 9 2 7 6 4 11 8 1 10
CEC-16 1 3 7 1 3 3 3 7 7 7 7
CEC-17 2 5 9 1 8 6 3 11 7 4 10
CEC-18 2 5 8 1 9 6 3 11 7 4 10
CEC-19 1 4 8 2 7 5 3 11 10 6 9
CEC-20 4 4 4 1 4 4 2 10 4 2 10
CEC-21 4 5 8 2 7 3 1 11 10 5 9
CEC-22 1 6 10 2 7 5 4 11 8 3 9
CEC-23 4 6 9 2 7 5 3 11 8 1 10
CEC-24 2 9 8 1 5 5 3 11 9 3 7
CEC-25 3 10 6 1 6 6 2 6 11 4 5
CEC-26 3 11 7 6 7 5 1 10 4 1 9
CEC-27 2 8 10 1 6 5 4 9 10 3 7
CEC-28 2 10 5 1 8 7 3 11 6 4 9
Average rank 2.5 6.25 7.78 1.57 6.32 5.0 2.39 10.0 7.78 3.07 8.82
Overall rank 3 6 8 1 7 5 2 11 8 4 10

a research study concerning metaheuristic algorithm design
given in [120].
Inverse Tangent Constraint Handling mechanism is a
versatile and easy-to-apply procedure, eliminating the
employment of an exhaustive and tedious trial-and-error-
based penalty value assignment process. This intelligently
devised constraint handling tool is found to be the best
available mechanism among the possible alternatives
according to the outcomes of the research study given in
[121]. Tables 31 and 32 show the statistical outcomes of
the compared metaheuristic optimizers for each engineer-
ing design problem considered in this study.
5.1 Tension/compression spring design problem
The tension/compression spring design problem first
introduced by Arora [122] deals with minimizing the
weight of a tension/compression spring by taking several
constraints into account, such as shear stress and surge
frequency. The design parameters of the problem are wire
diameter (d), mean coil diameter (D), and number of active
coils (N). The mathematical representation of the opti-
mization problem is,

123
14344 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

Table 30 Functional properties

No Name D gnum hnum NFEs
of each engineering design
optimization problem CP01 Tension/compression spring design 3 4 0 60,000
CP02 Belleville spring design 4 7 0 60,000
CP03 Optimal design of a flywheel 3 2 0 10,000
CP04 Car side impact design problem 11 10 0 50,000
CP05 Optimal welded beam design 4 7 0 50,000
CP06 Pressure vessel design problem 4 4 0 50,000
CP07 Industrial refrigeration system 14 15 0 50,000
CP08 Multi-spindle automatic lathe 10 14 1 50,000
CP09 Design of a heat exchanger 8 6 0 70,000
CP10 Hydrostatic thrust bearing model 4 7 0 20,000
CP11 Stepped cantilever beam design 10 11 0 60,000
CP12 Optimal operation of alkylation unit 7 14 0 60,000
CP13 Speed reducer design problem 7 11 0 60,000
CP14 Optimal design of a reactor 8 4 0 50,000

xÞ ¼ ðN þ 2ÞDd 2
arg min f ð~ (x2), inner diameter Di (x3), and external diameter De (x4)
of the spring. Figure 15 shows the physical representation
subject to
of the Belleville spring. The objective function and con-
D3 N 4D2  dD straints of the problem are given as,
g1 ð~
xÞ ¼ 1  4
 0; g2 ð~
xÞ ¼
71785d 12566ðDd 3  d4 Þ  
arg min f ð xÞ ¼ 0:07075p D2e  D2i t
1
þ  10 subject to
5108d 2  
4Edmax dmax
140:45d Dþd g1 ð x Þ ¼ S  2 2
b h þ ct
g3 ð~
xÞ ¼ 1   0; g4 ð~
xÞ ¼  10 ð1  l ÞaDe 2
D2 N 1:5    
4Edmax d 3
ð125Þ  0; g2 ð xÞ ¼ h  ðh  d Þt þ t
ð1  l2 Þax24 2 d¼dmax

where the design parameters are restricted to following  Pmax  0

ranges, g3 ð xÞ ¼ dl  dmax  0; g5 ð xÞ ¼ Dmax  De  0;
g4 ð xÞ ¼ H  h  t g6 ð xÞ ¼ De  Di  0
0:05  d  2:00; 0:25  D  1:3; 2.0  N  15 h
g7 ð xÞ ¼ 0:3  0
De  Di
The results reported in Table 31 show that MANTA
where
comes up with the most desired solution performance    
compared to other competing optimizers. Table 33 gives 6 K1 2 6 K1
a¼ ;b ¼ 1 ;
p ln K K p ln K ln K
the decision variable, constraint satisfaction, and objective  
6 K1
function values of the best results found with each opti- c¼ ; Pmax ¼ 5400lb; E ¼ 30E6 psi
p ln K 2
mizer for the tension/compression spring design problem.
dmax ¼ 0:2 in, l ¼ 0:3; S ¼ 200 KPsi,
It is seen that the same objective function values are found
H ¼ 2 in, Dmax ¼ 12:01 in; K ¼ De =Di ; d1 ¼ f ðaÞa; a ¼ h=t
by the SNAKE and MANTA optimizers. Moreover, all
competing algorithms successfully determined a solution ð126Þ
of the design problem without violating the inequality Table 34 lists the changing values of f(a) with regard to
constraints. Figure 14 depicts the convergence maps of a. Once again, the results given in Table 31 reveal that
each design variable for different optimization algorithms. MANTA outperforms the competing optimizers in terms of
The quick convergence performance of MANTA can be solution accuracy and consistency. Also, EQUIL is realized
noted in the charts. as the second-best performer algorithm with comparable
optimization performance to MANTA. Table 35 reports the
5.2 Optimal design of a Belleville spring results of the best solutions determined by the optimizers.
Figure 16 shows the variations of the decision variables
The Belleville spring design optimization problem aims to throughout the iterations for each optimization algorithm.
determine the minimum weight by considering four dif- The poor convergence behavior of AFRICAN and coveted
ferent design variables, namely thickness t (x1), height h

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14345

Table 31 Statistical outcomes for the first set of benchmark constrained engineering optimization problems
Problem Tension/compression spring Bellevile spring
Best Worst Mean Std Dev Best Worst Mean Std Dev

RUNGE 0.0126655 0.0157459 0.0132063 5.62E-04 1.9798313 2.4877024 2.0378178 0.1249922

GRAD 0.0126690 0.0148831 0.0132552 5.13E-04 1.9927511 2.8510001 2.2927353 0.2149018
PRO 0.0126741 0.0136532 0.0129286 2.25E-04 1.9834002 2.3076660 2.0592726 0.0778693
REPTILE 0.0126980 0.0143113 0.0132977 4.29E-04 2.1283579 3.2167725 2.6888404 0.2285834
SNAKE 0.0126653 0.0161877 0.0132012 7.69E-04 1.9874918 3.2349364 2.3419672 0.2304580
EQUIL 0.0126657 0.0133165 0.0128277 1.53E-04 1.9798231 1.9805509 1.9802833 1.15E-04
MANTA 0.0126653 0.0127050 0.0126781 1.01E-05 1.9796760 1.9803489 1.9797279 9.26E-05
AFRICAN 0.0126654 0.0138503 0.0128252 2.79E-04 2.0029510 3.2167365 2.2866787 0.2157784
AQUILA 0.0133431 0.0214323 0.0158611 0.0018358 2.1330342 3.8669488 3.0975222 0.4046920
HARRIS 0.0126663 0.0158699 0.0133717 7.39E-04 2.0362030 3.1351364 2.4213435 0.1907070

Problem Optimal design of a flywheel Car crashworthiness

Best Worst Mean Std Dev Best Worst Mean Std Dev

RUNGE - 5.684782 - 5.684752 - 5.684774 7.16E-06 23.013975 24.180236 23.384072 0.2073751

GRAD - 5.684269 - 4.635577 - 5.654328 0.1203316 23.344482 26.237443 24.510346 0.6732937
PRO - 5.684702 - 5.652871 - 5.681449 0.0060798 23.047091 25.519270 24.048011 0.5277097
REPTILE - 5.681093 - 4.960125 - 5.541409 0.1419082 23.230407 24.785423 23.953335 0.3260325
SNAKE - 5.684778 - 4.035649 - 5.371802 0.3707310 23.895012 27.566562 25.352635 0.7247717
EQUIL - 5.684783 - 5.684781 - 5.684783 1.67E-07 22.843053 23.579915 23.008573 0.1516327
MANTA - 5.684783 - 5.683855 - 5.684720 1.69E-04 22.843092 23.388643 22.982930 0.2010305
AFRICAN - 5.684783 - 5.652521 - 5.683256 0.0058583 23.052260 24.772757 23.629449 0.3479980
AQUILA - 5.672231 - 4.767308 - 5.561655 0.1118341 23.495077 25.581189 24.376052 0.4849284
HARRIS - 5.684766 - 5.584682 - 5.660700 0.0220117 23.459696 25.676467 24.289256 0.4664434

Problem Optimal welded beam design Pressure vessel design problem

Best Worst Mean Std Dev Best Worst Mean Std Dev

RUNGE 1.7245284 1.8642993 1.7453911 0.0242625 5874.8887 5891.5317 5875.8562 2.7333851

GRAD 1.7259833 2.5913392 1.8231707 0.1397521 5881.1822 6010.3149 5918.2320 26.306616
PRO 1.7247001 2.0831086 1.7912137 0.0982138 5875.3442 5932.7700 5889.9641 13.163446
REPTILE 1.7776817 2.1975705 1.9171648 0.0798489 5918.0124 6061.1684 5972.8295 29.280143
SNAKE 1.7598859 3.0493413 2.1077843 0.2838168 5892.3658 6078.8836 5975.3571 48.828087
EQUIL 1.7245275 1.8095835 1.7269403 0.0103666 5875.2338 5965.7181 5915.4556 21.875586
MANTA 1.7245275 1.7245275 1.7245275 4.35E-16 5874.9418 5898.3653 5877.2474 3.7234545
AFRICAN 1.7247730 1.9205681 1.7511433 0.0310166 5875.0181 6356.4790 5920.5786 70.849160
AQUILA 1.7630874 2.3019916 1.9235292 0.1185979 5946.8282 6540.1063 6117.2101 112.44139
HARRIS 1.7390551 2.3312481 1.8651659 0.0997532 5880.7329 6048.6887 5943.8753 33.397907

Problem Industrial refrigeration system Multi-spindle automatic lathe

Best Worst Mean Std Dev Best Worst Mean Std Dev

RUNGE 0.0365475 0.3600127 0.0877705 0.0501503 - 4396.090 - 3368.883 - 4209.207 168.48935

GRAD 0.0631868 1,072,498.5 55,457.804 205,823.68 - 4029.690 - 2514.817 - 3361.858 298.93365
PRO 3.7994443 600,986.26 67,127.818 163,300.72 - 4082.041 - 2838.410 - 3364.411 273.19764
REPTILE 11.338978 2,639,386.7 408,610.74 630,478.63 - 4010.273 - 2865.929 - 3376.766 246.14437
SNAKE 891,031.82 891,031.82 891,031.82 0.0000000 - 4347.893 - 2856.534 - 3565.494 390.97044
EQUIL 0.0328972 0.0831393 0.0429145 0.0106516 - 4174.764 - 2973.311 - 3448.921 251.96906
MANTA 0.0322144 0.0849842 0.0473375 0.0116252 - 4321.037 - 2848.001 - 3444.883 284.89763
AFRICAN 0.0451270 6.7968186 0.2603458 0.7783040 - 4153.929 - 2914.450 - 3531.240 317.46318
AQUILA 1199.7546 3,406,513.2 695,605.18 871,649.90 - 4216.306 - 2857.298 - 3473.527 310.48199
HARRIS 230.18247 2,209,728.8 386,960.67 547,568.90 - 4143.006 - 2769.173 - 3368.058 293.30269

123
14346
behavior of MANTA and EQUIL can be observed in
Fig. 16.
5.3 Optimal design of a flywheel
The optimal design of a flywheel problem [123] has a
nonlinear objective function and is subjected to two
inequality constraints. The problem is mathematically
represented as,
~Þ ¼ ð0:0201=107 Þx41 x2 x23
arg min f ðx
respect to
xÞ ¼ 675  x21 x2  0
g1 ð~
  ð127Þ
xÞ ¼ 0:419  x21 x23 =107  0
g2 ð~
Allowable search bounds
0  x1  36; 0  x2  5; 0  x3  125
The reported results in Table 31 show that MANTA,
EQUIL, and AFRICAN find the most desirable best results
after several runs. However, it is realized that EQUIL
outperformed its peers by examining at the mean and
standard deviation results. Table 36 gives the decision
variable and constraint values of the best results for the
compared optimization algorithms. Figure 17 shows the
variations of the decision variables with the increasing
number of iterations.
5.4 Car side impact design problem
This problem, firstly illustrated by Gu et al. [124], handles
the FE (finite element) model of a car. The main objective
is to reduce the weight and ameliorate the strength and
resilience of the vehicle to a satisfactory amount in the case
of an instantaneous crash. The procedures and experi-
mental configurations implemented by the European
Enhanced Vehicle-Safety Committee (EEVC) have been
utilized to accomplish the test studies of the car impact. A
regressive model has been developed by employing Latin
hypercube sampling and quadratic backward-stepwise
regression methods. The problem consists of nine design
parameters; these are B-Pillar inner, B-Pillar reinforce-
ment, floor side inner, cross members, door beam, door
beltline reinforcement, and roof rail thicknesses (x1–x7), B-
Pillar inner and floor side inner materials (x8 and x9) and
barrier height and hitting position (x10 and x11). Among
them, two of the decision variables are discrete (x8 and x9),
and the rest of them are continuous. The optimization
problem is shown below,
123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
arg min f ðxÞ ¼ 1:98 þ 4:90x1 þ 6:67x2 þ 6:98x3
þ 4:01x4 þ 1:78x5 þ 2:73x7
subject to
g1 ðxÞ ¼ Fa  1:0 kN, g2 ðxÞ ¼ VCu  0:32 m/s,
g3 ðxÞ ¼ VCm  0:32 m/s
g4 ðxÞ ¼ VCl  0:32 m/s, g5 ðxÞ ¼ Dur  32 m,
g6 ðxÞ ¼ Dmr  32 mm
g7 ðxÞ ¼ Dlr  32 mm, g8 ðxÞ ¼ Fp  4 kN,
g9 ðxÞ ¼ VMBP  9:9 mm/ms
g10 ðxÞ ¼ VFD  15:7 mm/ms
where
Fa ¼ 1:16  0:3717x2 x4  0:00931x2 x10  0:484x3 x9
þ 0:01343x6 x10
VCu ¼ 0:261  0:0159x1 x2  0:1881x1 x8  0:019x2 x7
þ 0:0144x3 x5 þ 0:0008757x5 x10 þ 0:08045x6 x9
þ 0:00139x8 x11 þ 0:00001575x10 x11
VCm ¼ 0:214 þ 0:00817x5  0:131x1 x8  0:0704x1 x9
þ 0:03099x2 x6  0:018x2 x7
þ0.0208x3 x8 þ 0:121x3 x9  0:00364x5 x6
þ 0:0007715x5 x10  0:0005354x6 x10
þ 0:00121x8 x11 þ 0:00184x9 x10  0:02x22
VCl ¼ 0:74  0:61x2  0:163x3 x8
þ 0:001232x3 x10  0:166x7 x9 þ 0:277x22
Dur ¼ 28:98 þ 3:818x3  4:2x1 x2 þ 0:0207x5 x10
þ 6:63x6 x9  7:7x7 x8 þ 0:32x9 x10
Dmr ¼ 33:86 þ 2:95x3 þ 0:1792x10  5:057x1 x2
 11:0x2 x8  0:0215x5 x10  9:98x7 x8 þ 22:0x8 x9
Dlr ¼ 46:36  9:9x2  12:9x1 x8 þ 0:1107x3 x10
FP ¼ 4:72  0:5x4  0:0122x4 x10 þ 0:009325x6 x10
þ 0:000191x211
VMBP ¼ 10:58  0:674x1 x2  1:95x2 x8 þ 0:02054x3 x10
 0:0198x4 x10 þ 0:028x6 x10
VFD ¼ 16:45  0:489x3 x7  0:843x3 x6 þ 0:0432x9 x10
 0:0556x9 x11  0:000786x211
where
0:5  x1 ; x2 ; x3 ; x4 ; x5 ; x6 ; x7  1:5
 30  x10 ; x11  30
x8 ; x9 2 f0:192; 0:345g
ð128Þ
Similar to the previous case, MANTA and EQUIL
outperform the competing optimization algorithms and find
the best results f(x) = 22.843092, as reported in Table 31. It
is recognized that MANTA performs slightly better for
consecutive runs compared to EQUIL by investigating the
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14347

Table 32 Statistical results for the second set of benchmark constrained engineering optimization problems
Problem Design of a heat exchanger Hydrostatic thrust bearing model
Best Worst Mean Std Dev Best Worst Mean Std Dev

RUNGE 7411.6897 10,130.485 8140.2322 490.75219 19,505.756 30,470.239 22,765.922 2706.2542

GRAD 7323.5956 13,662.856 9789.5474 1306.9996 20,009.396 34,060.394 24,671.685 3162.4149
PRO 7344.3243 13,941.226 9175.2006 1615.0778 20,519.413 49,291.511 25,382.922 4322.6059
REPTILE 11,812.881 19,072.194 15,949.822 1978.4300 23,457.816 48,249.117 33,337.716 4352.8301
SNAKE 9680.6944 16,374.383 13,088.709 2221.9716 26,596.482 120,228.19 49,855.116 19,042.845
EQUIL 7146.3565 8804.1750 7656.8758 332.21851 20,018.722 29,704.576 22,464.335 1793.0170
MANTA 7067.4473 9021.1629 7424.2728 301.84261 19,541.313 29,029.518 20,806.842 1529.7314
AFRICAN 7328.5675 8734.7933 8018.1150 329.42177 23,739.446 82,167.141 35,719.867 10,073.106
AQUILA 8811.4828 14,587.542 11,699.009 2837.7227 22,991.626 91,412.942 41,050.933 11,180.680
HARRIS 8010.0975 15,370.372 11,191.945 1873.9423 19,521.249 31,901.288 23,600.872 3340.6890
Problem Stepped cantilever beam Optimal operation of alkylation unit
Best Worst Mean Std Dev Best Worst Mean Std Dev

RUNGE 64,578.208 69,277.665 65,121.182 1064.1303 1245.6379 2117.3499 1519.6188 190.23775

GRAD 64,724.229 77,925.184 71,875.794 2375.2440 1349.9752 2222.3185 1556.7339 147.10351
PRO 66,158.642 76,469.398 71,300.283 1974.3993 1278.3725 2916.0061 1602.8508 354.84969
REPTILE 68,828.688 85,320.661 75,128.335 3001.4417 1629.1143 2972.2061 2452.2865 415.32999
SNAKE 68,457.074 78,304.308 72,557.032 1988.8471 1397.4619 2823.4577 1876.1794 408.63850
EQUIL 64,578.194 68,643.431 65,740.851 1676.5524 1235.4962 2139.5592 1381.5739 155.00092
MANTA 64,578.194 69,277.112 67,249.444 1803.3796 1227.4051 1274.3095 1235.0356 8.7295558
AFRICAN 64,579.575 71,085.347 66,954.139 1902.9033 1267.9188 2680.1533 1817.2341 391.65331
AQUILA 65,337.621 85,572.919 71,508.944 3415.1317 1488.8332 3040.4273 2206.7925 408.79305
HARRIS 64,944.385 75,397.840 68,677.812 2079.5299 1270.1414 2867.8027 1613.1782 342.69084

Problem Speed reducer design problem Optimal design of a reactor

Best Worst Mean Std Dev Best Worst Mean Std Dev

RUNGE 2823.6811 2824.8458 2823.8169 0.1555914 3.9636216 4.4107582 4.1637900 0.1253885

GRAD 2828.1824 2884.8669 2844.2099 12.758142 4.1654223 6.8838287 4.5454970 0.3700420
PRO 2824.7120 2838.0842 2829.5876 2.7090358 4.0086553 7.7602229 4.5810918 0.6108497
REPTILE 2858.3486 2925.5761 2890.9390 15.751613 4.4029289 5.3611018 4.8769577 0.2515282
SNAKE 2831.6399 2930.1740 2874.7778 22.281051 4.2959290 9.2004413 5.8464765 1.2328020
EQUIL 2823.6625 2823.6626 2823.6625 0.0000183 3.9526041 4.3009504 4.0780024 0.0948024
MANTA 2823.6625 2823.6625 2823.6625 1.03E-09 3.9515829 4.2922526 4.0136751 0.0791672
AFRICAN 2826.5224 3051.6577 2862.4383 54.512379 3.9710219 4.4091549 4.1616755 0.0982632
AQUILA 2854.6592 3572.3944 2983.8190 105.80110 4.0812704 4.8485287 4.3467733 0.1435924
HARRIS 2828.7357 2924.0439 2861.5659 24.676918 4.0043941 4.8585662 4.3415776 0.1432127

other metrics. Table 37 lists the decision variable and
constraint outcomes for the best results found by the
optimizers. Figure 18 demonstrates the convergence
chart for the design variables for each optimizer.
5.5 Optimal welded beam design problem
The welded beam design optimization problem [125]
shown in Fig. 19 tackles the minimization of the produc-
tion costs of the welded beam. The problem has four design
variables, namely thickness of the weld (h - x1), length of
the weld (l - x2), beam height (t - x3), and beam width
(b - x4). Furthermore, there are seven inequality

123
14348 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

- 0.0367954
- 0.0075177
- 3.9413444
- 0.6831819
constraints subjected to shear stress (s), bending stress (r)

0.0543703
0.4208569
8.7250747

0.0133431
AQUILA in the beam, buckling load on the bar (P), end deflection of
the beam (d), and a few side constraints. The mathematical
formulation of the problem is given as,
arg min f ðxÞ ¼ 1:10471x21 x2 þ 0:04811x3 x4 ð14 þ x2 Þ

- 4.0026154
- 0.7436421
- 3.52E-05
- 6.01E-04
12.7817213 subject to
0.0507291
0.3338077

0.0126980
REPTILE

g1 ð xÞ ¼ sð xÞ  smax  0; g2 ð xÞ ¼ rð xÞ  rmax  0; g3 ð xÞ
¼ x1  x4  0
g4 ð xÞ ¼ 0:1047x21 þ 0:04811x3 x4 ð14 þ x2 Þ  5  0; g5 ð xÞ
¼ 0:125  x1  0
- 4.0538141
- 0.7268456
- 1.95E-04
- 2.74E-04

g6 ð xÞ ¼ dð xÞ  dmax  0; g7 ð xÞ ¼ Pð xÞ  Pc  0
11.2216283
0.0517467
0.3579849

0.0126741
0:1  x1 ; x4  2; 0.1  x2 ; x3  10
PRO

where
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
x2 P MR
sð xÞ ¼ ðs0 Þ2 þ2s0 s00 þ ðs00 Þ2 ; s0 ¼ pffiffiffi ; s00 ¼
2R 2x1 x2 J
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
- 4.0448223
- 0.7303177
- 3.03E-04
- 1.82E-06

  2  
11.5144281

x2 x2 x1 þ x3 2
0.0515337
0.3529899

0.0126690

M ¼P Lþ ;R¼ þ
2 4 2
 
GRAD

pffiffiffi x22 x1 þ x3 2 6PL 4PL3

J¼2 2 x1 x2 þ ; rð xÞ ¼ 2
; d ð xÞ ¼ 3
12 2 x4 x3 Ex3 x4
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 6 rffiffiffiffiffiffi!
4:013E ðx3 x4 =36Þ x3 E
- 4.0649926
- 0.7237373
- 9.32E-08
- 6.88E-15

Pc ¼ 1
10.9596895

L2 2L 4G
0.0519269
0.3624671

0.0126663
HARRIS

P ¼ 6000 lb, L ¼ 14 in, E ¼ 30  106 psi,

G ¼ 12  106 psi, smax ¼ 13600 psi
rmax ¼ 30000 psi, dmax ¼ 0:25 in
- 4.0595998
- 0.7256402
- 1.57E-05
- 1.23E-06

ð129Þ
11.1149557
0.0518138
0.3597259

0.0126657
EQUIL

The results in Table 31 reveal that EQUIL and MANTA

result in comparably better outcomes than their peers, with
the MANTA slightly outperforming EQUIL in terms of
solution consistency. REPTILE is the worst performer
- 4.0486669
- 0.7295164
- 8.29E-07
- 5.36E-08
11.4415035

optimization algorithm among the contenders for this

0.0515818
0.3541436

0.0126655
RUNGE

problem. Table 38 reports the optimal design variable and

Table 33 Optimal results for tension/compression spring design problem

constraint values of the best solutions. Figure 20 depicts

the variations of the design variables through 2000
iterations.
- 4.0492441
- 0.7293172
- 6.20E-09
- 7.31E-09
11.4243391
AFRICAN

0.0515938
0.3544304

0.0126654

5.6 Pressure vessel design problem

The pressure vessel design problem [126] deals with

minimizing the total cost of a cylindrical vessel. The vessel
- 4.0543463
- 0.7275159
- 7.23E-06
- 1.48E-06
11.2711160

is covered at both ends with hemispherical caps, as

0.0517018
0.3570244

0.0126653
MANTA

depicted in Fig. 21. The problem consists of four design

Tension/compression spring design

parameters and constraints. The design parameters are shell

thickness (Ts - x1), head thickness (Th - x2), inner radius
(R - x3), and length of the cellular part of the container
- 4.0501728
- 0.7289937
- 4.44E-16
- 4.92E-08
11.3965586

(L - x4) of the vessel. The mathematical representation of

0.0516132
0.3548963

0.0126653
SNAKE

the problem is given as,

Method

f(x)
g1
g2
g3
g4
x1
x2
x3

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14349

Fig. 14 Convergence map of the design variables for each optimizer

Table 34 Change of f(a) with respect to a

a \ 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1

f(a) 1 0.85 0.77 0.71 0.66 0.63 0.6 0.58

a 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 [
f(a) 0.56 0.55 0.53 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.5

objective function value f(x) = 5874.9418306. AQUILA is

the worst performer algorithm for this problem. Table 39
Fig. 15 Design configuration of the Belleville spring reports the optimal decision variable, constraint satisfac-
tion, and objective function values of the optimizers. Fig-
ure 22 demonstrates the convergence charts of the design
arg min f ð xÞ ¼ 0:6224x1 x3 x4 þ 1:7781x2 variables.
x23 þ 3:1661x21 x4 þ 19:84x21 x3
5.7 Industrial refrigeration system design
subject to
g1 ðxÞ ¼ x1 þ 0:0193x3  0; g2 ðxÞ The industrial refrigeration system design problem [127]
¼ x2 þ 0:00954x3  0; has fourteen design variables and fifteen constraints
ð130Þ
4 imposed on the objective function. With large enough
g3 ðxÞ ¼ px23 x4  px33 design variables and constraints compared to the other
3
þ 1296000  0; g4 ð xÞ ¼ x4  240  0 benchmark engineering design problems, this problem can
be considered an exemplary case of a constrained engi-
0:5  x1  1; 0:3  x2  0:5
neering design problem. The problem can be mathemati-
40  x3  50; 170  x4  240 cally formalized as follows,
RUNGE is the best performer algorithm for this case,
with the objective function value f(x) = 5874.8886953.
MANTA is a close contender for the top spot with the

123
14350 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

- 1304.464374
arg min f ð xÞ ¼ 63098:88x2 x4 x12 þ 5441:5x22 x12 þ 115055:5x1:664
2 x6

- 3.8387463
- 0.8413958
- 1.5794556
- 0.0034515
- 2.1286341
- 0.1992142
þ6172:27x22 x6 þ 63098:88x1 x3 x11 þ 5441:5x21 x11

12.0065485
9.8779144
0.2060082
0.2145361

2.1330342
AQUILA

þ 115055:5x1:664
1 x5 þ 6172:27x21 x5 þ 140:53x1 x11
þ281.29x3 x11 þ 70:26x21 þ 281:29x1 x3 þ 281:20x23
þ14437x21 x7 x1:8812
8 x1 0:3424 1
9 x10 x12 x14 þ 20479:2x21 x2:893
7 x0:316
11

- 3890.441850
g1 ð xÞ ¼ 1:524x1
7  1; g2 ð xÞ ¼ 1:524x1 1

- 29.6798113
- 0.7963789
- 1.5861495
- 0.0010729
- 2.1083103
- 0.2020306
8
1
12.0089271

g3 ð xÞ ¼ 0:07789x1  2x7 x9  1;
9.9006168
0.2073006
0.2065499

2.1283579
REPTILE

g4 ð xÞ¼ 7.05305x21 x1 1 1 1

2 x8 x9 x10 x14  1
1
g5 ð xÞ¼ 0.0833x13 x14  1
1
g6 ð xÞ ¼ 47:136x0:33
2 x10 x12  1:333x8 x13
2:1195
- 129.9260392

1 1 2:1195
þ 62:08x0:2
8 x10 x12 x13 1
- 9.6466297

- 0.7780430
- 1.5914240
- 0.0100000
- 2.0175868
- 0.1998703
12.0000000

g7 ð xÞ ¼ 0:0477x1:8812 x10 x0:3424  1;

9.9824132
0.2065557
0.2020203

2.0362030
8 12
HARRIS

g8 ð xÞ ¼ 0:0488x1:893
7 x9 x0:316
11 1
g9 ð xÞ ¼ 0:0099x1 x1
3  1; g10 ð xÞ ¼ 0:0193x2 x1
4 1
g11 ð xÞ ¼ 0:0298x1 x1
5  1; g12 ð xÞ ¼ 0:056x2 x1
6 1
- 31.4141362
- 0.0599619
- 0.7904032
- 1.5931041
- 0.0100000
- 2.0040524
- 0.1989712

g13 ð xÞ ¼2x1  1; g14 ð xÞ ¼ 2x1

10  1; g15 ð xÞ ¼ x1
11 x12  1
12.0000000

9
AFRICAN

9.9959476
0.2044289
0.2024670

2.0029510

0:001  xi  5:0; i ¼ 1; :::; 14

ð131Þ
All competing metaheuristic optimizers successfully
- 598.1447297

find results without violating the constraints imposed on

- 0.7031552
- 0.7785114
- 1.5954448
- 0.0044905
- 1.9912450
- 0.1995198
12.0055095
10.0142645

the objective function. Once again, it is realized that

0.2044745
0.2000806

1.9927511

MANTA outperforms its peers in terms of the best result

GRAD

found after consecutive runs. EQUIL takes the second spot

with performance metrics close to that of MANTA.
SNAKE is the worst-performing algorithm for this prob-
- 22.9679606
- 0.7780795
- 1.5953798
- 0.0089574
- 1.9855269
- 0.1992367
- 1.75E-10

lem. Table 40 lists the optimal design variable, constraint,

12.0010426
10.0155157
0.2045520
0.2000682

1.9874918
SNAKE

and objective function values for the best results of each

algorithm. Figure 23 depicts the convergence maps of each
design variable.
- 0.3865452
- 7.5699475
- 0.7797716
- 1.5955506
- 0.0018207
- 1.9824053
- 0.1990325
12.0081793
10.0257740

5.8 Multi-spindle automatic lathe

0.2042910
0.2001585

1.9834002
PRO

This problem deals with optimizing a multi-spindle auto-

Table 35 Optimal results for Belleville spring design problem

matic lathe and consists of ten design variables and fifteen

- 0.0562590
- 0.0078115
- 0.7796851
- 1.5958526
- 0.0022437
- 1.9800995
- 0.1989949

nonlinear constraints [123]. The mathematical expression

12.0077563
10.0276567
0.2041473
0.2000001

1.9798313

of the problem is as follows,

RUNGE

- 0.5074727
- 0.7796637
- 1.5958478

- 1.9796001
- 0.1989694
- 8.73E-11

- 9.43E-06
12.0099906
10.0303905
0.2041519
0.2000002

1.9798231
EQUIL

- 0.0020917

- 0.7797037
- 1.5958566

- 1.9795292
- 0.1989659
- 9.19E-04

- 7.76E-06
Belleville spring design
12.0099922
10.0304630
0.2041434
0.2000000

1.9796760
MANTA
Method

f(x)
h1
h2
h3
h4
h5
h6
h7
x1
x2
x3
x4

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14351

Fig. 16 Convergence map of the design variables

0:15x1 þ 14x2  0:06

arg min f ð xÞ ¼ 20000
0:002 þ x1 þ 60x2
0:75 x9 x10 10
g1 ð x Þ ¼ x 1   0; g2 ð xÞ ¼ x1   0; g3 ð xÞ ¼ x1    0;
x3 x4 x4 x5 x4 x6 x4
0:19 10 0:125
g4 ð x Þ ¼ x 1    0; g5 ð xÞ ¼ x1   0;
x4 x7 x4 x4 x8
g6 ð xÞ ¼ 10000x2  0:00131x9 x0:6665 x1:5
4 0
g7 ð xÞ ¼ 10000x2  0:001038x10 x1:6 3
6 x4  0; g8 ð xÞ ¼ 10000x2  0:000223x0:666
7 x1:5
4 0
g9 ð xÞ ¼ 10000x2  0:000076x3:55
8 x4
5:66
 0; g10 ð xÞ ¼ 10000x2  0:000698x1:2 2
3 x4  0
ð132Þ
g11 ð xÞ ¼ 10000x2  0:00005x1:6 3
3 x4  0; g12 ð xÞ ¼ 10000x2  0:00000654x2:42
3 x4
4:17
0
g13 ð xÞ ¼ 10000x2  0:000257x0:666
3 x1:5
4  0;
g14 ð xÞ ¼ 30  2:003x4 x5  1:885x4 x6  0:184x4 x8  2x4 x0:803
3 0
h1 ð xÞ ¼ x9 þ x10  0:255 ¼ 0
0  x1  10; 0  x2  0:1; 0:5E  4  x3  0:0081; 10  x4  1000
0:5E  4  x5  0:0017; 0:5E  4  x6  0:0013; 0:5E  4  x7  0:0027
0:5E  4  x8  0:002; 0:5E  4  x9  1:0; 0:5E  4  x10  1:0

123
14352 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

- 0.8366908

- 5.6722312
As seen from the results in Table 31, RUNGE outper-

- 4.06E-04
28.9821549

70.5936607
0.8026085
AQUILA forms the competing optimizers in all optimization per-
formance metrics. One of the best performer algorithms so
far, MANTA, also shows a desirable performance in this
case; however, it is not enough to overthrow RUNGE from
the top spot. REPTILE is the worst performer for this case,
- 0.0578673

- 5.6810928
- 2.36E-04
22.0743510

92.7036213
with the best objective function value of f(x) = -
1.3851304
REPTILE

4010.273284. Table 41 shows the design variable, con-

straint satisfaction, and objective function values for the
best results obtained by the optimizers. Figure 24 demon-
strates the variations of the decision variables for the
- 0.0036086

- 5.6842686
- 3.56E-05
113.5642123
18.0238286

competing optimizers.
2.0778173
GRAD

5.9 Optimal design of a heat exchanger

This problem, first introduced by Hock and Schittkowski

- 0.0024829

- 5.6847021
- 4.39E-06
22.5207397

90.8912524

[128], tackles the design optimization of a heat exchanger.

1.3308738

The problem has six inequality constraints and eight

PRO

decision variables. The mathematical representation of the

problem is as follows,
- 5.6847655
- 2.13E-11
- 1.26E-06

arg min f ð xÞ ¼ x1 þ x2 þ x3
100.3405433
20.3999880
1.6219742
HARRIS

subject to
g1 ð xÞ ¼ 1 þ 0:0025ðx4 þ x6 Þ  0;
g2 ð xÞ ¼ 1 þ 0:0025ðx4 þ x5 þ x7 Þ  0
g3 ð xÞ ¼ 1 þ 0:01ðx5 þ x8 Þ  0; g4 ð xÞ ¼ 100x1
- 5.6847777
- 5.67E-04
- 2.22E-16
31.1759962

65.6578522
0.6944848

 x1 x6 þ 833:33252x4  83333:333  0
SNAKE

g5 ð xÞ ¼ x2 x4  x2 x7  1250x4 þ 1250x5  0; g6 ð xÞ
¼ x3 x5  x3 x8  2500x5 þ 1250000  0
- 5.6847823
- 1.89E-05
- 1.55E-09
22.1362598

92.4704068

100  x1  10000; 1000  x2  10000; 100  x3  10000;

1.3775116
RUNGE

10  xi  1000; i¼ 4; 5; 6; 7; 8
ð133Þ
According to the statistical results reported in Table 32,
- 5.6847825
- 1.40E-08
- 6.90E-10
111.2624457
18.3974830

MANTA takes the first spot with the best objective func-
AFRICAN

1.9942838
Table 36 Optimal outcomes for flywheel design problem

tion value f(x) = 7067.4473363. EQUIL takes the second

spot with the best objective function value
f(x) = 7146.3564714. REPTILE is the worst performer in
this problem. Table 42 reports the decision variable and
- 5.6847825
- 5.55E-17
117.6447763
17.3994036

constraint values for the best results obtained by each

2.2296415

0.0000000
MANTA

algorithm. Figure 25 depicts the convergence map of the

decision variables through 2500 iterations.
Optimal design of a flywheel

5.9.1 Hydrostatic thrust bearing model

- 5.6847825
- 1.14E-13
- 5.55E-17
111.3165460
18.3885417
1.9962236

This problem aims to minimize the total power loss of a

EQUIL

hydrostatic thrust bearing during its operation [129]. The

bearing must retain the axial support and cope with the
external force applied to it simultaneously during the
Method

operation. The physical configuration of the hydrostatic

f(x)
g1
g2
x1
x2
x3

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14353

Fig. 17 Convergence chart of the decision variables

thrust bearing is shown in Fig. 26. The problem has four case. HARRIS, which has not shown any presence until
design variables, namely bearing step radius R1, recess this case, is the second-best performer with the objective
radius Ro, oil viscosity l, and flow rate Q. There are also function value f(x) = 19521.2487819. SNAKE finds the
seven nonlinear inequality constraints imposed on the least desirable solution for this problem. Table 43 reports
objective function associated with oil pressure at the inlet, the optimal results of the best solutions obtained by the
load carrying capacity, oil film thickness, oil temperature optimizers. Figure 27 depicts the variations of the decision
rise, and some other physical constraints. The mathemati- variables for each algorithm.
cal formalization of the problem is given as follows,
QPo 5.9.2 Stepped cantilever beam design problem
arg min f ðxÞ ¼ þ Ef
0:7
subject to The main aim of this problem is to minimize the volume of
g1 ðxÞ ¼ W  W2  0; g2 ð xÞ ¼ Pmax  Po  0; g3 ðxÞ a stepped cantilever beam, depicted in Fig. 28, which is
¼ DTmax  DT  0; g4 ðxÞ ¼ h  hmin  0; subject to a load at its end. As can be seen from the figure,
g5 ðxÞ ¼ R  Ro  0; g6 ðxÞ ¼ 0:001 the beam consists of five segments. The decision variables
 
c Q W of the problem are the height and width of each segment.
  0; g7 ð xÞ ¼ 5000   2  0
gPo 2pRh p R  R2o Therefore, the problem has ten decision variables, which
pPo R2  R2o 6lQ R are the widths {x1, x3, x5, x7, x9} = {b1, b2,b3, b4, b5} and
W¼ ; Po ¼ 3 ln ; Ef ¼ 9336QcCDT;
2 ln RRo ph Ro ð134Þ the heights {x2, x4, x6, x8, x10} = {h1, h2, h3, h4, h5.}. The
log10 ðlog10 ð8:122E6l þ 0:8ÞÞ  C1 first six decision variables are discrete, and the remaining
P¼
n are continuous. The mathematical representation of the
   
2pN 2 2pl R4  R4o optimization problem is given below,
h¼
60 Ef 4
c ¼ 0:0307; C ¼ 0:5; n ¼ 3:35; C1 ¼ 10:04
Ws ¼ 101000; Pmax ¼ 1000; DTmax ¼ 50; hmin ¼ 0:001
g ¼ 386:4; N ¼ 750

1  R; Ro ; Q  16; 1E  6  l  16E  6

RUNGE outperforms the competing algorithms and

results in a more desirable objective function value for this

123
 14354

123
Table 37 Optimal results for car side impact design problem
Method EQUIL MANTA RUNGE PRO AFRICAN REPTILE GRAD HARRIS AQUILA SNAKE

Car side impact design

x1 0.5000001 0.5000067 0.5204184 0.5130266 0.5283519 0.5711456 0.5135188 0.5074228 0.5245048 0.5601427
x2 1.1175506 1.1171732 1.1634763 1.1557417 1.1580013 1.1338720 1.2198405 1.1379911 1.1815605 1.2408260
x3 0.5000006 0.5000059 0.5000002 0.5000416 0.5044043 0.5097193 0.5069730 0.5063674 0.5082857 0.5001031
x4 1.3002459 1.3008608 1.2415288 1.2601296 1.2428136 1.2620844 1.2057099 1.3284775 1.2579703 1.1824449
x5 0.5000000 0.5000050 0.5000033 0.5001268 0.5000204 0.5080387 0.5455699 0.5774253 0.5113291 0.7017471
x6 1.4999997 1.4999905 1.4970505 1.4761108 1.4961024 1.4716622 1.3810503 1.4173367 1.4432764 1.2832200
x7 0.5000000 0.5000042 0.5000001 0.5167865 0.5000021 0.5002779 0.5008135 0.5543835 0.5719905 0.5174247
x8 0.3450000 0.3450000 0.3450000 0.3450000 0.3450000 0.3450000 0.3450000 0.3450000 0.3450000 0.3450000
x9 0.3450000 0.3450000 0.1920000 0.1920000 0.3450000 0.3450000 0.1920000 0.1920000 0.3450000 0.1920000
x10 - 19.3495451 - 19.4164608 - 9.4934556 - 11.4956139 - 9.7496883 - 10.5089797 0.0323625 - 15.6884219 - 7.7015683 7.1793440
x11 0.0096023 - 0.0172372 - 0.3750806 - 2.6808194 1.6949710 - 2.0171247 - 0.2791182 - 5.9686579 - 3.6783333 5.6660122
g1 - 0.6150540 - 0.6158451 - 0.5114176 - 0.5320046 - 0.5126022 - 0.5160530 - 0.4335659 - 0.5814025 - 0.5042783 - 0.3910451
g2 - 0.0782522 - 0.0782745 - 0.0759421 - 0.0771568 - 0.0761363 - 0.0791097 - 0.0738473 - 0.0804319 - 0.0785753 - 0.0710293
g3 - 0.0922116 - 0.0922115 - 0.0942117 - 0.0954564 - 0.0938895 - 0.0970104 - 0.0989525 - 0.0993817 - 0.0988537 - 0.1017876
g4 - 0.0217045 - 0.0217074 - 0.0198678 - 0.0209919 - 0.0197619 - 0.0183122 - 0.0181322 - 0.0235079 - 0.0228011 - 0.0151227
g5 - 3.6767186 - 3.6807606 - 3.1691268 - 3.3114190 - 3.1985382 - 3.4162690 - 2.6953306 - 3.6787518 - 3.2453478 - 2.6158583
g6 - 5.2574951 - 5.2670433 - 3.9304914 - 4.2198744 - 3.9811479 - 4.2220351 - 2.5317045 - 4.8376595 - 3.8504791 - 1.8023764
g7 0.9868502 0.9868550 1.0271489 1.0111574 1.0427664 1.1270751 1.0135121 0.9576905 0.9301117 1.0859198
g8 - 2.28E-07 - 1.14E-07 - 2.37E-06 - 2.02E-06 - 2.87E-05 - 0.0024829 - 4.00E-04 - 4.66E-11 - 0.0059634 - 6.53E-04
g9 - 0.6282749 - 0.6295470 - 0.4257771 - 0.4587161 - 0.4354473 - 0.4614603 - 0.1980935 - 0.5083679 - 0.3798875 - 0.0894056
g10 - 0.1650955 - 0.1653690 - 0.0781101 - 0.0710831 - 0.1051803 - 0.0738047 - 0.0061361 - 0.1715999 - 0.0495418 - 0.1618255
f(x) 22.8430532 22.8430915 23.0139754 23.0470907 23.0522596 23.2304066 23.3444818 23.4596963 23.4950774 23.8950119
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14355

Fig. 18 Variations of the design variables throughout the iterations

arg min f ð xÞ ¼ 100ðx1 x2 þ x3 x4 þ x5 x6 þ x7 x8 þ x9 x10 Þ

subject to
600P 1200P
g1 ð x Þ ¼ 2  14000  0; g2 ð xÞ ¼ 2
x10 x9 x8 x7
 14000  0; g3 ð xÞ
1800P
¼ 2  14000  0;
x6 x5
2400P 3000P
g4 ð x Þ ¼ 2  14000  0; g5 ð xÞ ¼ 2  14000  0;
x4 x3 x2 x1
 
Pl3 244 148 76 28 4
g6 ð x Þ ¼ þ þ þ þ  dmax
E x1 x32 x3 x34 x5 x36 x7 x38 x9 x310
x2 x4 x6
g7 ð xÞ ¼  20; g8 ð xÞ ¼  20; g9 ð xÞ ¼  20
x1 x3 x5
x8 x10
g10 ð xÞ ¼  20; g11 ð xÞ ¼  20
x7 x9
x1 2 f1; 2; 3; 4; 5g; x3 ; x5 2 f2:4; 2:6; 2:8; 3:1g
Fig. 19 Schematic representation of the welded beam x2 ; x4 2 f45; 50; 55; 60g; x6 2 f30; 31; :::; 65g
1  x7 ; x9  5; 30  x8 ; x10  65

E ¼ 2:7E7 (N/cm2 ), P = 50000 N, l = 100 cm,

dmax ¼ 2:7 cm
ð135Þ

123
 14356

123
Table 38 Optimal decision variables, constraint satisfaction, and objective function values for the welded beam design problem
Method EQUIL MANTA RUNGE PRO AFRICAN GRAD HARRIS SNAKE AQUILA REPTILE

Optimal welded beam design

x1 0.2057296 0.2057296 0.2057298 0.2057252 0.2055946 0.2053905 0.2057889 0.2066151 0.2062490 0.1921853
x2 3.4704887 3.4704887 3.4704903 3.4717499 3.4731047 3.4750459 3.4493178 3.6436790 3.5931701 3.7800462
x3 9.0366239 9.0366239 9.0366216 9.0366075 9.0373819 9.0443057 9.0888144 8.9779912 9.0750543 9.1686187
x4 0.2057296 0.2057296 0.2057298 0.2057310 0.2057259 0.2057352 0.2068184 0.2084255 0.2075935 0.2070408
g1 - 2.00E-11 0.0000000 - 0.0098068 - 3.6254763 - 1.48E-06 - 0.6406315 - 0.0886841 - 505.0071692 - 449.5138389 - 136.0452955
g2 - 1.08E-08 0.0000000 - 0.0013653 - 0.0961993 - 4.4808763 - 51.7438730 - 499.6751081 0.0000000 - 520.6154616 - 1042.117371
g3 - 8.05E-16 0.0000000 - 4.27E-09 - 5.83E-06 - 1.31E-04 - 3.45E-04 - 0.0010295 - 0.0018104 - 0.0013444 - 0.0148555
g4 - 3.4329838 - 3.4329838 - 3.4329832 - 3.4328633 - 3.4326533 - 3.4312201 - 3.4175536 - 3.4071492 - 3.4009803 - 3.3723492
g5 - 0.0807296 - 0.0807296 - 0.0807298 - 0.0807252 - 0.0805946 - 0.0803905 - 0.0807889 - 0.0816151 - 0.0812490 - 0.0671853
g6 - 0.2355403 - 0.2355403 - 0.2355403 - 0.2355403 - 0.2355437 - 0.2355775 - 0.2358628 - 0.2354459 - 0.2358514 - 0.2362435
g7 - 7.28E-12 - 9.09E-12 - 0.0091262 - 0.1160892 - 9.50E-08 - 3.8357572 - 118.8447906 - 212.2736666 - 181.7512602 - 173.7305111
f(x) 1.7245275 1.7245275 1.7245284 1.7247001 1.7247730 1.7259833 1.7390551 1.7598859 1.7630874 1.7776817
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14357

Fig. 20 Convergence map of the design variables for each optimizer

Fig. 21 Physical design of the

pressure vessel

5.9.3 Optimal operation of alkylation unit

MANTA outperforms other algorithms in terms of
solution accuracy for this problem. EQUIL and RUNGE
This problem aims to find the optimal decision variables
are close contenders for the first place with the best-found
that represent the operating conditions to maximize the
objective function values f(x) = 64578.194021 and
profit of an alkylation unit. Alkylation process is widely
f(x) = 64578.208116, respectively. REPTILE is the worst
utilized in the petroleum industry. The alkylation process is
performer for this problem with the objective function
basically mixing the pure butane and recycled and make-up
value f(x) = 68828.688275. MANTA and EQUIL have
pure isobutene streams together with an acid catalyst in a
proven their effectiveness in continuous engineering design
reactor first. Then the product is passed to a fractionator,
problems before; they have shown their ability to tackle
where the alkylate product is separated from the isobutene.
mixed-integer problems with this problem. Table 44
The problem is first introduced in Bracken and McCormick
reports the optimal decision variable and constraint values
[130], several modifications have been made to the original
for the best results acquired from the optimizers. Figure 29
problem, and it is transformed into a problem with seven
depicts the convergence chart of the decision variables with
design variables and fourteen inequality constraints. The
the competing optimizers.
optimization problem is given below,

123
14358 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

- 5999.970910
arg min f ð xÞ ¼ a1 x1 þ a2 x1 x6 þ a3 x3 þ a4 x2 þ a5  a6 x3 x5

- 40.1050445
5946.8282168
- 0.0036301
- 0.0023662
199.8949555
40.4114570
subject to

0.7835712
0.3878915
AQUILA

g1 ð xÞ ¼ 1  c1 x26  c2 x3 =x1  c3 x6  0;
g2 ð xÞ ¼ 1  c4 x1 =x3  c5 x1 x6 =x3  c6 x1 x26 =x3  0
g3 ð xÞ ¼ 1  c7 x26  c8 x5  c9 x4  c10 x6  0;

- 2661.606034
- 41.9692450
5918.0124466
- 0.0021502
- 7.88E-07
198.0307550 g4 ð xÞ ¼ 1  c11 =x5  c12 x6 =x5  c13 x4 =x5  c14 x26 =x5  0
40.4992647
0.7837860
0.3863638
REPTILE

g5 ð xÞ ¼ 1  c15 x7  c16 x2 =ðx3 x4 Þ  c17 x2 =x3  0;

g6 ð xÞ ¼ 1  c18 =x7  c19 x2 =ðx3 x7 Þ  c20 x2 =ðx3 x4 x7 Þ  0
g7 ð xÞ ¼ 1  c21 =x5  c22 x7 =x5  0; g8 ð xÞ
- 96.1823088
- 42.3822673
5892.3657850
- 3.02E-14
- 3.02E-04
197.6177327

¼ 1  c23 x5  c24 x7  0;
40.4930975
0.7815168
0.3866065

g9 ð xÞ ¼ 1  c25 x3  c26 x1  0;
SNAKE

g10 ð xÞ ¼ 1  c27 x1 =x3  c28 =x3  0; g11 ð xÞ

¼ 1  c29 x2 =ðx3 x4 Þ  c30 x2 =x3  0
- 10.5715007
- 35.9010856
5881.1821691
- 0.0016530
- 8.75E-05

g12 ð xÞ ¼ 1  c31 x4  c32 x3 x4 =x2  0; g13 ð xÞ

204.0989144
40.0282072
Table 39 Optimal decision variable, constraint satisfaction, and objective function values for the pressure vessel design problem

0.7726319
0.3835221

¼ 1  c33 x1 x6  c34 x1  c35 x3  0;

GRAD

g14 ð xÞ ¼ 1  c36 x3 =x1  c37 =x1  c38 x6  0

where
- 36.7040896
5880.7328569

1  x1  2000; 1  x2  120; 1  x3  5000; 85  x4  93;

- 7.76E-05
- 8.88E-04
- 2.05E-08
203.2959104
40.0847265
0.7737129
0.3832964

90  x5  95; 3  x6  12; 145  x7  162

HARRIS

ð136Þ
Table 45 lists the values of a and c parameters utilized in
- 19.6770802
- 35.5041216
5875.3441691
- 3.73E-05
- 3.63E-05

Eq. (136). MANTA and EQUIL dominate the other algo-

204.4958784
40.0004015
0.7720451
0.3816402

rithms in terms of optimization performance again.

MANTA finds a more desirable best objective function
PRO

than EQUIL, which is f(x) = 1227.4051154. REPTILE

results in the least desirable solution with an objective
- 35.6607532
5875.2337568
- 2.61E-13
- 5.53E-12
- 1.11E-06

value f(x) = 1629.1143496 for this problem. Table 46

204.3392468
40.0111416
0.7722150
0.3817063

reports the decision variable, constraint violation, and

EQUIL

objective function values for the best solutions obtained by

the optimizers. Figure 30 depicts the convergence chart of
the decision variables for each optimizer considered in this
- 35.5658858
5875.0181144
- 0.2163612
- 5.05E-09
- 1.88E-08

study.
204.4341142
40.0044720
AFRICAN

0.7720863
0.3816427

5.9.4 Speed reducer design problem

This problem investigates the weight minimization of a

- 35.5235117
5874.9418306
- 0.9054483
- 2.38E-07
- 5.49E-06

small propeller-type aircraft speed reducer. The physical

204.4764883
40.0015021
0.7720292
0.3816198

representation of the speed reducer is shown in Fig. 31.

MANTA

The objective function is subject to eleven inequality

Pressure vessel design problem

constraints, which mainly stand for the limitations in the

gear teeth bending and surface stresses, two shafts trans-
- 35.5050591
5874.8886953
- 0.0152299
- 1.06E-07
- 3.41E-06

verse deflections and shaft stresses. There are seven design

204.4949409
40.0001924
0.7720038
0.3816052

parameters in the optimization problem, such as face width

RUNGE

(x1), tooth module (x2), the number of pinion teeth (x3),

length of the first shaft (l1 - x4), length of the second shaft
(l2 - x5), diameter of the first shaft (d1 - x6), and diameter
Method

of the second shaft (d2 - x7). Among these seven design

f(x)
g1
g2
g3
g4
x1
x2
x3
x4

variables, x3 takes an integer value and the rest of them

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14359

Fig. 22 Variations of each design variable throughout the iterations

takes continuous values. The mathematical formalization consistent performances. It is realized that the standard
of the problem is as follows [131], deviation of MANTA is better than that of EQUIL.
  RUNGE shows a remarkable performance and takes the
arg min f ð xÞ ¼ 0:7854x1 x22 3:3333x23 þ 14:933x3  43:0934
      third spot with the best objective function value
1.508x1 x26 þ x27 þ 7:4777 x36 þ x37 þ 0:7854 x4 x26 þ x5 x27
f(x) = 2823.6811432. REPTILE continues its bad perfor-
subject to
mance with this problem and finds the worst optimal
27 397
g1 ð xÞ ¼  1  0; g2 ð xÞ ¼  1  0; g3 ð xÞ objective function value f(x) = 2858.3486103. BARNA
x1 x22 x3 x1 x22 x23
fails to find an optimal solution to this problem and is
1:93x34
¼  10 excluded from the tables. Table 47 reports the optimal
x2 x3 x46
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
r results for the best objective function outcomes obtained by
 2
745x4
þ16900000 the optimization algorithms. Figure 32 demonstrates the
1:93x35 x2 x3
g4 ð xÞ ¼  1  0; g5 ð xÞ ¼ convergence map of the design variables.
x2 x3 x47 110x36
 10 5.9.5 Optimal design of a reactor
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2
745x5
þ15750000
x2 x3 x 2 x3 This geometric programming problem is taken from
g6 ð xÞ ¼  1  0; g7 ð xÞ ¼  10
85x37 40 Dembo [132]. The problem is mathematically shown as
5x2 x1 follows,
g8 ð xÞ ¼  1  0; g9 ð xÞ ¼  1  0; g10 ð xÞ
x1 12x2
0:67 0:67
1:5x6 þ 1:9 arg min f ð xÞ ¼ 0:4x0:67
1 x7 þ 0:4x0:67
2 x8  x1  x2 þ 10
¼  10
x4 subject to
1:1x7 þ 1:9
g11 ð xÞ ¼  10 g1 ð xÞ ¼ 0:0588x5 x7 þ 0:1x1  1; g2 ð xÞ ¼ 0:0588x6
x5
x8 þ 0:1x1 þ 0:1x2  1
2:6  x1  3:6; 0:7  x2  0:8; 17  x3  28; 7:3  x4  8:3; g3 ð xÞ ¼ 4x3 x1 0:71 1
5 þ 2x3 x5 þ 0:0588x1:3
3 x7  1;
7:3  x5  8:3; 2:9  x6  3:9; 5:0  x7  5:5; g4 ð xÞ ¼ 4x4 x1 0:71 1
6 þ 2x4 x6 þ 0:0588x1:3
4 x8  1
ð137Þ
Once again, EQUIL and MANTA outperformed the 0:1  xi  10; i ¼ 1; 2; :::; 8
competing optimizers with their solution accuracy and ð138Þ

123
 14360

Table 40 Optimal results for the industrial refrigeration system design problem

123
Method MANTA EQUIL RUNGE AFRICAN GRAD PRO REPTILE HARRIS AQUILA SNAKE

Industrial refrigeration system design

x1 0.0010000 0.0010000 0.0010000 0.0010000 0.0010001 0.0010008 0.0010949 0.0010000 0.0021516 0.0090600
x2 0.0010000 0.0010042 0.0010808 0.0016756 0.0010015 0.0010381 0.0028442 0.0149557 0.0058789 3.6836187
x3 0.0010000 0.0010035 0.0015812 0.0024414 0.0022692 0.0014330 0.0028050 0.3191832 1.5852365 0.0723213
x4 0.0010000 0.0010000 0.0072535 0.0078691 0.0018380 1.5470493 1.3364879 0.3487126 0.6966927 2.9774804
x5 0.0010000 0.0010066 0.0012144 0.0018981 0.0010090 1.3695902 1.8416263 0.0484875 2.8303539 1.3059121
x6 0.0010000 0.0010023 0.0024580 0.0010021 0.0010876 0.1965114 0.1055420 1.8051969 2.5621386 0.8005476
x7 1.5240000 1.5240000 1.5240084 1.5240044 1.5290907 1.5241894 3.2519640 1.6645558 1.7568989 1.7708722
x8 1.5240000 1.5240000 1.5240019 1.5277296 1.5852457 2.3559381 3.1777915 1.8496361 2.9570379 4.2020563
x9 5.0000000 4.9999991 4.9999253 4.5780802 4.1193447 2.1615838 4.9990404 3.0778857 2.6799621 3.8284289
x10 2.0000000 2.0675930 2.0010886 2.0012602 2.0529566 2.0000006 3.1687752 2.0745889 4.8143853 3.9206844
x11 0.0010039 0.0014952 0.0015548 0.0018409 0.0087943 0.2174969 0.0067224 0.0600268 0.6216910 0.4704093
x12 0.0010039 0.0014853 0.0015080 0.0015856 0.0047384 0.0156561 0.0026164 0.0029890 0.0288870 0.0179707
x13 0.0073068 0.0089232 0.0088500 0.0078807 0.0105251 0.0125960 0.0013968 0.0096068 0.0418313 0.0181866
x14 0.0877167 0.1071064 0.1062362 0.0937640 0.1226587 0.1467965 0.0056050 0.0122957 0.1563728 0.0021988
g1 - 4.03E-10 - 9.74E-09 - 5.52E-06 - 2.92E-06 - 0.0033292 - 1.24E-04 - 0.5313601 - 0.0844404 - 0.1325625 - 0.1394071
g2 - 6.39E-11 - 1.93E-08 - 1.27E-06 - 0.0024413 - 0.0386348 - 0.3531239 - 0.5204216 - 0.1760541 - 0.4846194 - 0.6373204
g3 - 7.5616019 - 7.5616007 - 7.5614676 - 7.0078838 - 6.3878887 - 3.8362937 - 4.0743893 - 4.6980687 - 4.0506193 - 5.3230721
g4 - 0.9788958 - 0.9822061 - 0.9838687 - 0.9871544 - 0.9819466 - 0.9817961 - 0.8942126 - 0.9860232 - 0.9784221 - 0.9825803
g5 - 4.37E-11 - 1.33E-04 - 5.79E-05 - 0.0089018 - 0.0292265 - 0.0292041 - 0.6657294 - 0.8933838 - 0.6886098 - 0.9899287
g6 - 4.70E-11 - 3.88E-04 - 3.08E-05 - 0.2542703 - 0.5393765 - 0.7414806 - 0.9860867 - 0.3836139 - 0.2896134 - 0.4270450
g7 - 0.9801733 - 0.9765612 - 0.9771971 - 0.9766928 - 0.9627139 - 0.8847572 - 0.8262511 - 0.9569864 - 0.4753487 - 0.2966188
g8 - 0.9388614 - 0.9306597 - 0.9297989 - 0.9321975 - 0.8993652 - 0.8553496 - 0.5319464 - 0.8379880 - 0.6729428 - 0.5657287
g9 - 0.9901000 - 0.9901344 - 0.9937387 - 0.9959450 - 0.9956369 - 0.9930864 - 0.9961357 - 0.9999690 - 0.9999866 - 0.9987598
g10 - 0.9807000 - 0.9806200 - 0.9971242 - 0.9958905 - 0.9894838 - 0.9999870 - 0.9999589 - 0.9991723 - 0.9998371 - 0.9761228
g11 - 0.9702000 - 0.9703960 - 0.9754615 - 0.9843001 - 0.9704636 - 0.9999782 - 0.9999823 - 0.9993854 - 0.9999773 - 0.9997933
g12 - 0.9440000 - 0.9438956 - 0.9753762 - 0.9063689 - 0.9484334 - 0.9997042 - 0.9984909 - 0.9995361 - 0.9998715 - 0.7423231
g13 - 0.6000000 - 0.5999999 - 0.5999940 - 0.5631357 - 0.5144859 - 0.0747525 - 0.5999232 - 0.3502033 - 0.2537208 - 0.4775925
g14 - 4.05E-09 - 0.0326916 - 5.44E-04 - 6.30E-04 - 0.0257953 - 2.87E-07 - 0.3688413 - 0.0359536 - 0.5845783 - 0.4898850
g15 - 1.22E-08 - 0.0066237 - 0.0300965 - 0.1386707 - 0.4611995 - 0.9280169 - 0.6107897 - 0.9502051 - 0.9535348 - 0.9617977
f(x) 0.0322144 0.0328972 0.0365475 0.0451270 0.0631868 3.7994443 11.3389780 230.1824693 1199.7545529 891,031.82463
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
Fig. 23 Convergence chart of the decision variables for the industrial refrigeration system design problem
The results reported in Table 32 indicate that MANTA
outperforms the competing algorithms in all performance
metrics, namely, best, worst, mean, and standard deviation.
EQUIL shows a significant performance and takes the
second spot with the best objective function value
f(x) = 3.9526041. Once again, REPTILE is the worst per-
former in this problem. Table 48 lists the optimal results of
the best objective function values, and Fig. 33 depicts the
variations of the design variables throughout the iterations
for each algorithm.
6 Discussion and critical analysis
This research study presents a detailed discussion and
comprehensive investigation of some newly emerging
well-reputed metaheuristic algorithms with a supportive
emphasis on their motivations, underlying algorithmic
concepts, and the advantages and disadvantages of each
optimizer’s computer implementation methods. The
exploration and exploitation capabilities of the eleven
emerging metaheuristic optimizers are compared over
eighteen multimodal and sixteen unimodal optimization
algorithms, respectively. MANTA algorithm proved its
dominancy with respect to the average ranking points
assigned to the competent algorithms for best and mean
results for multimodal test functions. REPTILE algorithm
took over the first seat and proclaimed a clear dominance
for unimodal test function based on the obtained average
14361
ranking points for best and mean results. The optimizers
are also applied to 500D and 1000D hyper-dimensional
variants of the same benchmark optimization problems to
see how well they scale with increasing dimensions. PRO
algorithm became the best predictor for multimodal test
function when problem dimensionality is increased from
30 to 500. REPTILE was again the best performer for
unimodal test functions, even in the hyper-dimensional
variant of 500D form. It is also observed that REPTILE
algorithm shows the fastest convergence to the optimal
solution compared to its counterparts in most of the cases
for standard 30D unimodal and multimodal problems as far
as the evolutionary tendencies of the convergence curves
are concerned. An algorithm complexity analysis is con-
ducted by assessing the runtimes of the optimizers on 30D
unimodal and multimodal problems. The results revealed
that RUNGE algorithm burdens the most computational
resources under the same operational conditions in com-
parison to the other remaining algorithms. It is also
observed that REPTILE algorithm shows the fastest con-
vergence to the optimal solution compared to its counter-
parts in most of the cases for standard 30D unimodal and
multimodal problems as far as the evolutionary tendencies
of the convergence curves are concerned. Moreover, the
optimization capabilities of the competing optimizers are
assessed over CEC-2013 benchmark optimization prob-
lems. Contrary to its absolute failure in standard test
functions with varying dimensionalities, EQUIL algorithm
shows a significant prediction performance for different
departments of CEC-2013 test problems. Finally, detailed
123
 14362

123
Table 41 Optimal results for the multi-spindle automatic lathe design problem
Method RUNGE SNAKE MANTA AQUILA EQUIL AFRICAN HARRIS PRO GRAD REPTILE

Multi-spindle automatic lathe design

x1 0.2606241 0.2158844 0.5550219 1.0423246 1.0965476 0.9302164 1.4284034 2.0581451 1.2326196 2.5279725
x2 0.0968701 0.0784091 0.0936382 0.0916384 0.0845877 0.0741677 0.0904200 0.0979304 0.0648186 0.0955211
x3 0.0050165 0.0066006 0.0035918 0.0048223 0.0018161 0.0046527 0.0068283 0.0010804 0.0017081 0.0020146
x4 704.5007086 708.4688796 599.3104301 729.2698803 909.0685298 528.2978402 527.3199803 368.4397734 749.8889154 305.7679490
x5 0.0016557 0.0010555 0.0002479 0.0010752 0.0005833 0.0011837 0.0006825 0.0011094 0.0011103 0.0004321
x6 0.0007260 0.0008763 0.0006036 0.0007517 0.0006223 0.0010621 0.0007388 0.0007985 0.0006813 0.0008713
x7 0.0012798 0.0015496 0.0010207 0.0026273 0.0002668 0.0015465 0.0005454 0.0005333 0.0003198 0.0008341
x8 0.0009385 0.0009478 0.0003758 0.0008433 0.0016225 0.0008826 0.0001918 0.0002826 0.0002586 0.0002874
x9 0.2260561 0.1614423 0.0613742 0.1491550 0.1058403 0.0413004 0.2319226 0.0093389 0.2163030 0.2536933
x10 0.0289439 0.0935577 0.1936258 0.1045549 0.1491597 0.2136996 0.0230774 0.2456611 0.0386956 0.0013986
g1 - 0.0484084 - 0.0555016 - 0.2066108 - 0.8290608 - 0.6422662 - 0.6250946 - 1.2201099 - 0.1739996 - 0.6470919 - 1.3104151
g2 - 0.0668255 - 4.03E-12 - 0.1418651 - 0.8520966 - 0.8969370 - 0.8641701 - 0.7840256 - 2.0352977 - 0.9728198 - 0.6077274
g3 - 0.1898412 - 0.0510689 - 0.0030715 - 0.8378745 - 0.8218637 - 0.5304384 - 1.3502047 - 1.1960262 - 1.1435442 - 2.4900183
g4 - 0.0356954 - 0.0287052 - 0.2277366 - 0.9294482 - 0.3021745 - 0.6787331 - 0.7488019 - 1.0640035 - 0.4271073 - 1.7502639
g5 - 0.0715646 - 0.0297320 - 2.39E-11 - 0.8390708 - 1.0117989 - 0.6621248 - 0.1925435 - 0.8574611 - 0.5880711 - 1.1053310
g6 - 968.6232300 - 784.0498773 - 936.3772613 - 916.3436153 - 845.8503046 - 741.6693951 - 904.1710700 - 979.3033815 - 648.1231045 - 955.2004277
g7 - 968.6013105 - 783.6483443 - 936.0762352 - 915.9616743 - 845.0140007 - 741.1059424 - 904.1654311 - 979.1632849 - 648.0405030 - 955.2101084
g8 - 968.6516891 - 784.0348557 - 936.3486213 - 916.3002331 - 845.8514955 - 741.6404105 - 904.1816123 - 979.2938895 - 648.1642459 - 955.2000211
g9 - 950.8382903 - 764.9934077 - 936.1043615 - 901.5247850 - 317.9049651 - 738.8602560 - 904.1873711 - 979.2978875 - 647.9238208 - 955.2082617
g10 - 968.0983613 - 783.2441909 - 936.0898361 - 915.7682445 - 845.5804720 - 741.3671344 - 903.7108766 - 979.2781983 - 647.9983349 - 955.1726472
g11 - 965.0429415 - 778.3202267 - 935.0623689 - 912.5748951 - 844.3303474 - 740.3092356 - 901.6873176 - 979.2594593 - 647.3987544 - 955.1411602
g12 - 955.3284334 - 757.4960433 - 933.3462755 - 902.3463284 - 842.5653225 - 738.3206494 - 895.7729710 - 979.2825062 - 646.9063799 - 955.1653694
g13 - 968.5597347 - 783.9203088 - 936.2931746 - 916.2392033 - 845.7716695 - 741.5894932 - 904.0873468 - 979.2850888 - 648.1100450 - 955.1886268
g14 - 6.5176465 - 2.0619207 - 15.9294033 - 7.1655987 - 16.1526161 - 13.4434581 - 9.2926924 - 25.5500627 - 18.3440715 - 25.0321875
h1 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0012901 0.0000000 3.89E-16 0.0000000 9.44E-09 1.43E-06 9.18E-05
f(x) - 4396.090084 - 4347.893277 - 4321.037272 - 4216.306314 - 4174.764104 - 4153.929410 - 4143.0064863 - 4082.040639 - 4029.689964 - 4010.273284
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
Fig. 24 Variations of the decision variables for each optimizer
inspection of the contestant algorithms is hinged upon the
exhaustive evaluation on constrained engineering design
problems. MANTA algorithm is the second-best optimizer
considering the accurate predictions, while AFRICAN sits
in third place for CEC-2013 problems. Finally, detailed
inspection of the contestant algorithms is hinged upon the
exhaustive evaluation on constrained engineering design
problems. MANTA algorithm provides the best optimal
results with satisfying all imposed design constraints in six
out of fourteen constrained engineering design cases and
becomes the best performer for this phase of the compre-
hensive performance evaluations. EQUIL is the second-
best estimator according to its satisfactory optimization
accuracies obtained for four engineering design problems.
RUNGE algorithm acquires the best results for third dif-
ferent design cases and occupies the third-best seat. It is
interesting to see that BARNA algorithm is not able to find
any feasible result within the consecutive algorithm runs
for each design problem and is removed from the com-
parative investigations, as seen from the tabulated results.
The authors aim to include various types of optimization
problems, such as multi-objective or dynamic, and com-
pare the performances of a broader set of metaheuristic
optimizers as a future work of this study.
It is interesting to see the complete failure of EQUIL
algorithm in unconstrained test cases, which is one of the
best-performing algorithms for engineering design prob-
lems. This is because of the algorithmic structure of the
EQUIL optimizer, which requires high number of
14363
evaluations to achieve the global answer of the problem. It
is observed that the total number of 50 iterations is not
sufficient to get close to the optimum solution since EQUIL
suffers from the improper balance between the exploration
and exploitation phases. Resulting from its unbalanced
algorithmic structure EQUIL makes too much emphasis on
the exploration phases in the early phases of the iterations,
neglecting the intensification of the visited regions in the
exploration, which result in a premature convergence to
local points. When the number of function evaluations is
increased as employed for constrained engineering prob-
lems, the overall prediction accuracy of EQUIL is enor-
mously enhanced compared to that performed for
unconstrained problems with varying dimensionalities.
Similar probing inclinations are also observed for RUNGE
and SNAKE algorithms, two of which give their priority on
the exploration rather than the exploitation phase in the
early phases of the iterative process. On the contrary, PRO
and REPTILE algorithm are two of the best predictors for
unconstrained test problems; however their overall pre-
diction accuracy deteriorates when constrained problems
are in consideration. This deterioration in optimization
ability occurred because the algorithmic design of these
two optimizers is predicated upon solving artificially gen-
erated optimization test functions such as multidimensional
Rastrigin, Sphere, Greiwank, etc. benchmark problems,
disregarding their comparative performance in optimizing
constrained engineering design problems or test cases used
in CEC competitions which can effectively simulate the
123
 14364

123
Table 42 Optimal results for the heat exchanger design problem
Method MANTA EQUIL GRAD AFRICAN PRO RUNGE HARRIS AQUILA SNAKE REPTILE

Optimal design of a heat exchanger

x1 576.5009773 265.3169286 626.5627719 244.1960388 519.7523482 379.1278458 300.5250290 199.7644298 646.1363954 509.8807756
x2 1588.6240592 1318.0339672 1411.3795294 2049.6872336 1825.0776917 1696.2122167 2686.2590541 3361.1929235 2325.8988717 2083.2365462
x3 4902.3222998 5563.0055756 5285.6532618 5034.6842570 4999.4942742 5336.3496054 5023.3133758 5250.5254258 6708.6591297 9219.7632664
x4 181.7829032 148.2955492 166.5657340 138.2102607 156.9583529 139.5673965 87.1623227 130.7219090 134.4161974 104.6663956
x5 303.9071858 277.4818425 289.1709087 298.6126910 300.0493252 286.5518230 299.2672600 290.2624994 285.8696235 231.7346875
x6 218.2170968 251.6918267 197.8276046 242.0493558 224.0121113 191.3907792 222.8639110 268.6973563 228.0647016 160.0524682
x7 277.8757153 270.8135372 275.1741215 236.6889248 254.9775787 247.8982255 187.1436051 216.8618840 221.3548358 233.9130960
x8 403.9071461 377.4811195 388.9381421 398.6126739 400.0363699 386.5514228 399.1817808 390.1308359 375.8784237 326.9663840
g1 - 1.60E-12 - 3.58E-06 - 0.0469847 - 0.0481516 - 0.1459272 - 0.0230986 - 0.7110261 - 0.1508723 - 0.3669033 - 0.3275552
g2 - 4.61E-12 - 8.88E-09 - 8.03E-05 - 0.0027774 - 6.23E-05 - 5.12E-05 - 0.0068517 - 0.1236185 - 0.0250437 - 0.2265892
g3 - 1.45E-13 - 5.44E-07 - 1.28E-04 - 3.33E-08 - 3.99E-06 - 6.00E-06 - 3.50E-05 - 8.54E-06 - 0.0271698 - 0.0687831
g4 - 2.27E-12 - 3.16E-05 - 0.0890167 - 0.0493510 - 0.0475738 - 0.1726046 - 0.2249344 - 0.0014518 - 0.0937978 - 0.3382028
g5 - 5.17E-09 - 4.24E-07 - 0.0055518 - 0.0072716 - 0.0048286 - 0.0127934 - 0.0018786 - 0.0589938 - 0.0679793 - 0.0975465
g6 - 3.97E-07 - 7.23E-06 - 0.0023277 - 1.72E-07 - 1.30E-04 - 4.00E-06 - 8.55E-04 - 0.0013166 - 0.0999120 - 0.0476830
f(x) 7067.4473363 7146.3564714 7323.5955632 7328.5675295 7344.3243141 7411.6896679 8010.0974590 8811.4827792 9680.6943968 11,812.880588
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
Fig. 25 Variations of the decision variables with increasing iterations for each optimizer
Fig. 26 Schematic representation of the hydrostatic thrust bearing
14365
complexities and challenges posed by complex real-world
problems. AFRICAN algorithm shows the third-best pre-
dictions for CEC-2013 problems while yielding compara-
tively inferior results for standard benchmark functions.
This results from the stability and robustness of the
AFRICAN algorithm, which is the primary requirement to
obtain accurate solutions of CEC-type problems involving
different shifted, rotated, discontinuous, and composite test
instances. Nevertheless, as occurred for EQUIL algorithm,
AFRICAN cannot cope with the nonlinearities of the test
functions procured by the huge number of local optimum
points in the search domain within fifty iterations and tends
to collapse at some certain stage of the iterations. This
search behavior can be explained form the prevailing
dominancy of the exploration mechanism at the early
phases, neglecting the influences of intensification on
promising solutions previously explored. Among the
compared algorithms, MANTA algorithm manages to
maintain the most proper balance between the exploration
and exploitation phases, which can also be verified by the
accuracy of the estimations results obtained for constraint
and unconstrained test functions as well as the outcomes of
the Friedman analysis. As previously mentioned in the
123
14366 Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378

- 435.4365927
- 326.4227246

- 549.8120798
related section of this study, MANTA algorithm consists of

26,596.482026
- 1.8176632

- 0.5238436
- 5.84E-04

- 7.36E-04
three complementary search mechanisms, including Chain

7.1870818
6.6632381
3.3807018
0.0000055
foraging, Cyclone foraging, and Somersault foraging
SNAKE

strategies. It can be easily observed that perturbation

equations of MANTA (particularly for the equation taking
place in Cyclone and chain foraging phases) are inspired by

- 110.7417218
- 25.9917633

23,739.446204
- 0.0014881

- 0.5345525

- 0.3884144
- 9.22E-04

- 6.06E-04
the search equations of Salp Swarm Optimization [15],
AFRICAN

6.2819884
5.7474359
5.0392252
0.0000074
which are effective tools in generating diverse solution
candidates. First part of the cyclone foraging phase can
produce a high solution diversity in the population thanks
to the created randomness through the commanding
- 156.1755034

- 200.3180075
- 15.5443204

23,457.815529
- 0.5424124
parameter xrand, which generates a random individual
- 1.98E-04

- 7.00E-04

- 7.10E-04
REPTILE

6.4456729
5.9032605
3.8184859
0.0000065

between the defined search limits. Second part of this phase

helps the algorithm to pivot around the best solution
obtained so far and focused on the promising areas located
nearby these fertile regions, which is conducive in pro-
- 537.1385001

- 335.3559017
- 72.6899603
- 17.2145200

moting exploitation among the population individuals.

22,991.625689
- 0.5865740
- 7.28E-04

- 7.24E-04

Chain foraging gives emphasis on the diversification of the

6.1994268
5.6128528
3.8172177
0.0000066
AQUILA

population individuals as much as possible rather than

giving prominence to exploration. On the contrary, Som-
ersault foraging is more effective in the intensification of
Table 43 Comparison of the optimal results for the hydrostatic thrust bearing model design optimization problem

- 2957.633197

the updated best results obtained in the Chain and Cyclone

- 32.9104867
20,519.413193
- 0.2739894
- 0.9272600

- 0.5787335
- 3.62E-04

- 8.25E-04

foraging phases instead of random visitations to the

6.0450371
5.4663036
2.4252686
0.0000054

unexplored regions of the search domain. Collaborative

PRO

cooperation of these complementary yet contradictive

probing mechanism yield superior predictive results,
- 47.0425311

yielding the most accurate solutions compared to those

20,018.721800
- 1.1155890
- 5.6127828

- 0.5670326

- 3.9620797
- 4.12E-04

- 8.12E-04

obtained from other contestant algorithms for a wide range

5.9603998
5.3933672
2.5704563
0.0000057
EQUIL

of benchmark problem domain which includes constraint

and unconstraint test instances. One can see the established
balance between these phases from the tendencies of the
- 69.0622695
- 23.5599889

20,009.395662

convergence curves obtained for MANTA algorithm.

- 2.4627285

- 0.5606719

- 3.7347376
- 3.70E-04

- 8.20E-04

Rather than quick stepwise declines at the early phases of

6.0226123
5.4619404
2.4379800
0.0000055
GRAD

iterations which are followed by rapid falls, eventually

entailing premature convergence to the local optimum
solutions, gradual decreases accompanied by quick small
- 13.6341103

19,541.313485

declines are observed for most of the benchmark cases by

- 1.2689959
- 0.1022394

- 0.5669836

- 4.7401175
- 3.27E-04

- 8.33E-04
5.9598727
5.3928891
2.2782097
0.0000054

MANTA optimizer, which is the clear evidence of suc-

MANTA

cessful balance between exploration and exploitation

phases.
19,505.755766 19,521.2487819
- 1.2880988

- 0.5664813

- 0.6925158
- 4.40E-07

- 1.36E-04
- 3.25E-04

- 8.33E-04

7 Conclusive comments
5.9592888
5.3928075
2.2720019
0.0000054
HARRIS

Hydrostatic thrust bearing model

Based on the overall analysis of the completive algorithms

over a variety of test problems with different functional
- 0.4020232
- 0.0130166

- 0.5667708

- 0.0519950
- 9.42E-04
- 3.24E-04

- 8.33E-04

characteristics, the following decisive conclusions can be

5.9558304
5.3890596
2.2697480
0.0000054

drawn,
RUNGE

• This research study comparatively investigates the

overall optimization performances of the eleven new
Method

emerging metaheuristics, including African Vultures

Optimization Algorithm (AFRICAN), Aquila
f(x)
g1
g2
g3
g4
g5
g6
g7
x1
x2
x3
x4

123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
Fig. 27 Convergence chart of the design variables for the hydrostatic thrust bearing design problem
Fig. 28 Physical design of the
stepped cantilever beam
Optimizer (AQUILA), Barnacles Mating Optimizer
(BARNA), Equilibrium Optimizer (EQUIL), Gradient-
based Optimizer (GRAD), Harris Hawks Optimization
Algorithm (HARRIS), Manta Ray Foraging Optimizer
(MANTA), Poor and Rich Optimization Algorithm
(PRO), Reptile Search Algorithm (REPTILE), Runge–
Kutta Optimizer (RUNGE), and Snake Optimizer
(SNAKE) over various benchmark suites having dif-
ferent functional complexities.
14367
• MANTA algorithm is the best optimizer between the
other compared methods when all optimum results
obtained for different test functions are averaged,
relying on its superior search mechanism, which
enables to pinpoint the fertile areas during the course
of iterations, thanks to the well-balanced exploration
and exploitation mechanism of the algorithm.
• EQUIL is the second-best algorithm despite its unsat-
isfactory performance on standard test functions, which
is compensated by the accurate and robust predictions
123
 14368

123
Table 44 Best result decision variables, constraint satisfaction, and objective function values for the stepped cantilever beam design problem
Method MANTA EQUIL RUNGE AFRICAN GRAD HARRIS AQUILA PRO SNAKE REPTILE

Stepped cantilever beam design

x1 3.0000000 3.0000000 3.0000000 3.0000000 3.0000000 3.0000000 3.0000000 3.0000000 3.0000000 3.0000000
x2 60.0000000 60.0000000 60.0000000 60.0000000 60.0000000 60.0000000 60.0000000 60.0000000 60.0000000 60.0000000
x3 3.1000000 3.1000000 3.1000000 3.1000000 3.1000000 3.1000000 3.1000000 3.1000000 3.1000000 3.1000000
x4 55.0000000 55.0000000 55.0000000 55.0000000 55.0000000 55.0000000 55.0000000 55.0000000 55.0000000 55.0000000
x5 2.6000000 2.6000000 2.6000000 2.6000000 2.6000000 2.6000000 2.6000000 2.8000000 2.6000000 2.8000000
x6 50.0000000 50.0000000 50.0000000 50.0000000 50.0000000 50.0000000 50.0000000 50.0000000 50.0000000 50.0000000
x7 2.2808874 2.2808874 2.2808860 2.2809290 2.2654172 2.2939434 2.2920966 2.4676595 2.5624042 2.6646506
x8 45.6177483 45.6177483 45.6177159 45.6185129 45.2447343 45.8534010 45.5249091 42.1676874 43.5516311 46.6463792
x9 1.7497570 1.7497570 1.7497631 1.7503382 1.8045581 1.8970779 2.0671577 1.9000401 2.4129447 2.0056417
x10 34.9951402 34.9951402 34.9951769 34.9893298 35.6010094 33.6089233 33.1511825 35.2786894 38.3240675 36.6419298
h1 - 2.31E-06 - 2.83E-08 - 0.0780772 - 9.13E-05 - 883.2646749 - 0.0369767 - 794.6599239 - 1313.740478 - 5534.927130 - 2859.332031
h2 - 1359.050067 - 1359.050069 - 1359.024537 - 1359.704096 - 1062.004927 - 1559.8548911 - 1369.511086 - 325.6576590 - 1654.895731 - 3651.554714
h3 - 153.8461538 - 153.8461538 - 153.8461538 - 153.8461538 - 153.8461538 - 153.8461538 - 153.8461538 - 1142.857143 - 153.8461538 - 1142.857143
h4 - 1203.412423 - 1203.412423 - 1203.412423 - 1203.412423 - 1203.412423 - 1203.4124234 - 1203.412423 - 1203.412423 - 1203.412423 - 1203.412423
h5 - 111.1111111 - 111.1111111 - 111.1111111 - 111.1111111 - 111.1111111 - 111.1111111 - 111.1111111 - 111.1111111 - 111.1111111 - 111.1111111
h6 - 7.28E-12 - 3.57E-12 - 1.13E-09 - 7.32E-10 - 2.14E-04 - 0.0012708 - 1.82E-04 - 2.01E-04 - 0.0523128 - 0.1382296
h7 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000
h8 - 2.2580645 - 2.2580645 - 2.2580645 - 2.2580645 - 2.2580645 - 2.2580645 - 2.2580645 - 2.2580645 - 2.2580645 - 2.2580645
h9 - 0.7692308 - 0.7692308 - 0.7692308 - 0.7692308 - 0.7692308 - 0.7692308 - 0.7692308 - 2.1428571 - 0.7692308 - 2.1428571
h10 - 1.46E-09 - 2.64E-09 - 2.20E-06 - 2.92E-05 - 0.0280782 - 0.0111018 - 0.1383112 - 2.9118696 - 3.0036062 - 2.4943730
h11 - 4.61E-10 - 2.06E-08 - 4.86E-05 - 0.0099605 - 0.2716194 - 2.2838466 - 3.9629159 - 1.4326611 - 4.1173036 - 1.7305702
f(x) 64,578.194018 64,578.194021 64,578.208116 64,579.574882 64,724.228803 64,944.3852349 65,337.621182 66,158.642092 68,457.073663 68,828.688275
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378 14369

Fig. 29 Convergence map of the stepped cantilever beam design problem

Table 45 Parameter values of the optimal operation of alkylation unit problem

a1 = 1.715 a2 = 0.035 a3 = 4.0565
a4 = 10 a5 = 3000 a6 = 0.063
c1 = 0.0059553571 c2 = 0.88392857 c3 = -0.1175625
c4 = 1.1088 c5 = 0.1303533 c6 = -0.0066033
c7 = 0.00066173269 c8 = 0.017239878 c9 = -0.0056595559
c10 = -0.19120592 c11 = 56.85075 c12 = 1.08702
c13 = 0.32175 c14 = -0.03762 c15 = 0.006198
c16 = 2462.3121 c17 = -25.125634 c18 = 161.18996
c19 = 5000 c20 = -489,510 c21 = 44.333333
c22 = 0.33 c23 = 0.022556 c24 = -0.007595
c25 = 0.00061 c26 = -0.0005 c27 = 0.819672
c28 = 0.819672 c29 = 24,500 c30 = -250
c31 = 0.010204082 c32 = 0.000012244898 c33 = 0.0000625
c34 = 0.0000625 c35 = -0.00007625 c36 = 1.22
c37 = 1.0 c38 = -1.0

123
 14370

123
Table 46 Optimal results for the operation of alkylation unit problem
Method MANTA EQUIL RUNGE AFRICAN HARRIS PRO GRAD SNAKE AQUILA REPTILE

Optimal operation of alkylation unit

x1 1697.2402921 1694.5883477 1693.5125744 1686.4242210 1693.8994497 1695.4944378 1667.9980927 1686.3157475 1551.5227945 1656.1159175
x2 54.1214406 55.9616864 59.9663213 55.5265191 59.6187899 60.7578611 58.7934979 71.3141298 64.2651106 80.8054466
x3 3030.5248268 3028.1218603 3027.3457303 3007.8366620 3027.7862475 3026.5227062 2971.3999374 3011.8723752 2756.5580469 2907.3701241
x4 90.1710409 90.3265697 90.8394454 90.0891344 90.3542413 90.9572797 89.8675361 90.5521336 91.5858912 90.7076945
x5 94.9996224 94.9754475 94.9996911 94.9999423 94.9349034 94.9975352 94.9823577 94.9989713 94.9962329 94.5927093
x6 10.4323750 10.1956399 9.7814951 10.5216390 10.0458745 10.0973498 10.7650973 10.1741622 9.2202223 8.8517483
x7 153.5342102 153.4409761 153.4973193 153.1854959 153.0662757 153.5277166 153.0257288 152.9879588 153.4497479 150.6361253
g1 - 3.50E-07 - 3.49E-05 - 1.99E-05 - 0.0011245 - 1.44E-05 - 0.0020360 - 7.76E-04 - 8.84E-04 - 0.0072152 - 0.0222430
g2 - 0.0198998 - 0.0198784 - 0.0198876 - 0.0192009 - 0.0198911 - 0.0186353 - 0.0194169 - 0.0193511 - 0.0153971 - 0.0058513
g3 - 1.95E-08 - 1.99E-06 - 4.28E-05 - 6.12E-10 - 2.23E-14 - 0.0026313 - 2.75E-04 - 7.52E-04 - 6.53E-04 - 1.30E-07
g4 - 0.0199000 - 0.0198988 - 0.0198744 - 0.0199000 - 0.0199000 - 0.0183253 - 0.0197356 - 0.0194501 - 0.0195095 - 0.0198999
g5 - 0.0094362 - 0.0095263 - 0.0093921 - 0.0098263 - 0.0094306 - 0.0093800 - 0.0065577 - 0.0028491 - 0.0078950 - 0.0102166
g6 - 8.06E-09 - 4.01E-06 - 4.93E-05 - 2.63E-06 - 6.57E-04 - 1.03E-05 - 0.0044480 - 0.0091985 - 0.0019468 - 0.0031070
g7 - 5.57E-10 - 6.94E-05 - 1.29E-04 - 0.0012147 - 9.45E-04 - 5.87E-07 - 0.0015849 - 0.0018907 - 2.58E-04 - 0.0058086
g8 - 0.0232808 - 0.0231180 - 0.0229991 - 0.0206251 - 0.0211867 - 0.0232786 - 0.0198083 - 0.0191467 - 0.0227158 - 0.0104482
g9 - 1.72E-09 - 1.40E-04 - 7.54E-05 - 0.0084317 - 1.14E-07 - 0.0015684 - 0.0214451 - 0.0059157 - 0.0942610 - 0.0545622
g10 - 0.5406736 - 0.5410270 - 0.5412006 - 0.5401564 - 0.5411626 - 0.5405391 - 0.5396005 - 0.5408021 - 0.5383520 - 0.5328109
g11 - 0.6123601 - 0.6075074 - 0.6096469 - 0.5947362 - 0.5834473 - 0.6114011 - 0.5523614 - 0.5131309 - 0.5918161 - 0.4413999
g12 - 0.0180614 - 0.0184518 - 0.0169124 - 0.0209671 - 0.0218296 - 0.0163848 - 0.0273696 - 0.0291696 - 0.0173467 - 0.0344482
g13 - 0.0183596 - 0.0451442 - 0.0896728 - 0.0149494 - 0.0614562 - 0.0548039 - 5.93E-05 - 0.0519574 - 0.2191308 - 0.2019596
g14 - 9.2534023 - 9.0149872 - 8.6000163 - 9.3451044 - 8.8645767 - 8.9190132 - 9.5911692 - 8.9945678 - 8.0520293 - 7.7093913
f(x) 1227.4051154 1235.4962276 1245.6379218 1267.9188010 1270.1414350 1278.3725073 1349.9751877 1397.4618629 1488.8331829 1629.1143496
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
Fig. 30 Variations of the decision variables throughout the iterations
Fig. 31 Schematic
representation of the speed
reducer
obtained for CEC-2013 problems and engineering
design cases.
• REPTILE and PRO algorithms are found to be very
competitive algorithms for standard test functions with
varying dimensionalities yet considerably outperformed
by other methods for CEC 2013 and engineering design
problems.
• Most of the algorithms experience difficulties on
solving constrained engineering problems due to the
involvement of the nature of design parameters, such as
mixed-integer or continuous decision components and
various types of problem constraints employed on the
objective function of the problem. The exhaustive
14371
comparison among the algorithms indicates that
MANTA is much better than the other algorithms in
terms of solution feasibility and proves its superior
ability in coping with the challenging imposed design
constraint without any significant violation. Another
remarkable conclusion can be given as to the outcomes
of the comparative study between algorithms that
metaheuristic optimizers can be an important and
indispensable alternative to the traditional problem
solvers for solving complex real-world engineering
problems relying on their stochastic nature, which
enables them to circumvent the singular points on the
123
 14372

123
Table 47 Optimal results for speed reducer design optimization problem
Method EQUIL MANTA RUNGE PRO AFRICAN GRAD HARRIS SNAKE AQUILA REPTILE

Optimal design of a speed reducer

x1 3.5000000 3.5000000 3.5000306 3.5002957 3.5004206 3.5011008 3.5017320 3.5034209 3.5226152 3.5053195
x2 0.7000000 0.7000000 0.7000004 0.7000051 0.7000001 0.7001421 0.7002039 0.7000343 0.7004445 0.7009941
x3 17.0000000 17.0000000 17.0000000 17.0000000 17.0000000 17.0000000 17.0000000 17.0000000 17.0000000 17.0000000
x4 7.3000000 7.3000000 7.3000299 7.3832650 7.5280721 7.5374026 7.3472098 7.3601485 7.7747142 7.7039355
x5 7.8000000 7.8000000 7.8000877 7.8026744 7.8112367 7.8416630 7.8644416 7.9041140 7.9969049 8.0058544
x6 3.3502147 3.3502147 3.3502208 3.3506267 3.3520000 3.3512317 3.3502991 3.3650752 3.3636776 3.3602034
x7 5.0000000 5.0000000 5.0000018 5.0000307 5.0000072 5.0004722 5.0030873 5.0001423 5.0147948 5.0311552
g1 - 0.0739153 - 0.0739153 - 0.0739245 - 0.0740069 - 0.0740267 - 0.0745822 - 0.0749124 - 0.0749101 - 0.0810281 - 0.0779414
g2 - 0.1979985 - 0.1979985 - 0.1980065 - 0.1980779 - 0.1980950 - 0.1985761 - 0.1988621 - 0.1988600 - 0.2041583 - 0.2014852
g3 - 0.4991722 - 0.4991722 - 0.4991701 - 0.4820971 - 0.4519179 - 0.4494846 - 0.4895927 - 0.4957224 - 0.4049814 - 0.4191424
g4 - 0.8768557 - 0.8768557 - 0.8768518 - 0.8767330 - 0.8763235 - 0.8749445 - 0.8741262 - 0.8718793 - 0.8689347 - 0.8702981
g5 - 7.31E-13 - 2.51E-12 - 5.44E-06 - 2.29E-04 - 0.0012103 - 5.10E-04 - 1.08E-14 - 0.0130909 - 0.0111585 - 0.0082228
g6 - 0.6236653 - 0.6236653 - 0.6236656 - 0.6236703 - 0.6236588 - 0.6237430 - 0.6243167 - 0.6236223 - 0.6268478 - 0.6304743
g7 - 0.7025000 - 0.7025000 - 0.7024998 - 0.7024979 - 0.7025000 - 0.7024396 - 0.7024133 - 0.7024854 - 0.7023111 - 0.7020775
g8 - 9.61E-13 - 2.89E-13 - 8.11E-06 - 7.73E-05 - 1.20E-04 - 1.11E-04 - 2.03E-04 - 9.28E-04 - 0.0057892 - 9.96E-05
g9 - 0.5833333 - 0.5833333 - 0.5833300 - 0.5833011 - 0.5832833 - 0.5832869 - 0.5832486 - 0.5829465 - 0.5809071 - 0.5832918
g10 - 0.0513258 - 0.0513258 - 0.0513284 - 0.0619407 - 0.0797113 - 0.0810034 - 0.0574043 - 0.0560499 - 0.1066532 - 0.0991221
g11 - 0.0512821 - 0.0512821 - 0.0512925 - 0.0516029 - 0.0526458 - 0.0562564 - 0.0586241 - 0.0637589 - 0.0726069 - 0.0713957
f(x) 2823.6624718 2823.6624718 2823.6811432 2824.7119944 2826.5223933 2828.1824161 2828.7356969 2831.6398701 2854.6591574 2858.3486103
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
Fig. 32 Fluctuations of the design variables for the speed reducer design problem
search space and help to them to approach the global
optimum of the problem more rapidly and accurately.
• In most of the literature approaches regarding to the
development of a novel metaheuristic algorithm and its
associated performance evaluations based on compar-
ative studies, the judgment of selecting the best
optimizer between the compared methods is usually
decided by the developer’s own concluding remarks,
lacking of the descriptive thorough analyses as to which
algorithm would be a better option for a specific type of
the problem. It is also observed that there are many
factors influencing the optimization accuracies of the
metaheuristic optimization algorithms, which include
tunable algorithm parameters, the total number of
function evaluations, designing the algorithmic struc-
ture of the optimizer, and its successful implantation
into a computer code, to name a few. Researchers
should avoid using algorithm-specific tunable parame-
ters, which not only significantly jeopardize the overall
optimization performance of the algorithm but also
require a trial-and-error-based parameter adjustment
procedure, dropping down the applicability of the
algorithm below a certain level. In addition, most of
the algorithms suffer from an imbalance between
exploration and exploitation mechanisms. Reducing
the instability between these two contradictive but
complementary phases entails a quick and accurate
14373
convergence to the optimal solution as well as prevent-
ing the entrapments in the local pitfalls residing in the
specific regions over the search space. Final suggestion
for the direction of future research can be given as the
development of a novel reliable performance measure
that simultaneously takes into account the solution
accuracy and algorithmic runtime of the intended
metaheuristic optimizer.
• This research study deals with the performance com-
parison of the newly emerged nature-inspired algo-
rithms over unconstrained and unconstrained
multidimensional optimization problems. After an
exhaustive investigation covering twenty-five recently
developed algorithms, eleven best-performing methods
are considered based on their success over a wide range
of optimization benchmark problems, including a set of
unimodal and multimodal test functions along with
fourteen complex engineering design cases. However, it
would be a more comprehensive and conducive survey
if more recently developed optimizers were included
and reviewed, but the majority of them are neglected
due to space restrictions. Furthermore, much more
reliable performance evaluations could be conducted by
employing more unconstrained test evaluations. Possi-
ble future work regarding the comprehensive optimiza-
tion performance assessment of the developed
metaheuristic algorithms should include a test suite
123
 14374

123
Table 48 Optimal outcomes for reactor design optimization problem
Method MANTA EQUIL RUNGE AFRICAN HARRIS PRO AQUILA GRAD SNAKE REPTILE

Optimal design of a reactor

x1 6.5126221 6.4606660 6.2687921 5.8001422 5.9718755 6.1325595 4.6470025 5.2303541 7.3722750 7.2322228
x2 2.2146349 2.2862768 2.3354829 2.7579448 2.6352740 2.2262722 3.7239778 2.9426203 1.8445410 1.6258861
x3 0.6659633 0.6676607 0.7697469 0.6587435 0.7516843 0.7375335 0.8321257 0.7880140 0.8524945 0.6995084
x4 0.5948357 0.5954836 0.6383987 0.6244425 0.6732460 0.7178269 0.6228037 0.3853462 0.4918527 0.5925678
x5 5.9246283 5.9334286 6.0131780 6.0603508 6.1267189 6.0117907 6.3863185 6.1703804 6.4642286 6.4786571
x6 5.5214569 5.5176782 5.5542588 5.5579233 5.6493228 5.6556417 5.6182516 6.3303501 5.5023688 6.8850803
x7 1.0010611 1.0144683 1.0552794 1.1785805 1.1181407 1.0936712 1.4051017 1.3132098 0.6913129 0.6742231
x8 0.3920213 0.3862222 0.4273624 0.4412136 0.4139328 0.4934076 0.4880816 0.4904286 0.2420677 0.2799351
g1 - 2.67E-09 - 1.43E-09 - 5.21E-07 - 2.25E-07 - 1.05E-06 - 1.39E-04 - 0.0076623 - 5.08E-04 - 6.78E-06 - 0.0199358
g2 - 2.64E-11 0.0000000 - 3.27E-08 - 1.05E-07 - 0.0017848 - 3.33E-05 - 0.0016626 - 1.53E-04 - 1.11E-16 - 8.59E-04
g3 - 6.87E-09 - 8.73E-08 - 2.50E-04 - 0.0021180 - 0.0141800 - 7.90E-04 - 0.0170750 - 4.92E-05 - 0.0759487 - 0.1071559
g4 - 1.93E-09 - 1.45E-05 - 1.16E-06 - 3.22E-05 - 0.0137544 - 1.87E-04 - 0.0052299 - 0.0350926 - 0.0050813 - 0.2020497
f(x) 3.9515829 3.9526041 3.9636216 3.9710219 4.0043941 4.0086553 4.0812704 4.1654223 4.2959290 4.4029289
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
Fig. 33 Convergence map of the optimal design of a reactor problem
composed of fifty-seven constrained test problems used
in CEC’2020 due to their challenging and complex
natures.
Funding The authors received no financial support for the research,
authorship and publication of this article.
Data availability Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no
datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
Declarations
Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there is no conflict of interest.
References
1. Abualigah L, Abd-Elaziz M, Khasawneh AK, Alshinwan M, Ali
Ibrahim R, Al-qaness MAAA, Mirjalili S, Sumari P, Gandomi
AH (2022) Metaheuristic optimization algorithms for solving
real-world mechanical engineering design problems: a compre-
hensive survey, applications, comparative analysis, and results.
Neural Comput Appl 34:4081–4110
2. Yıldız AR, Abderazek H, Mirjalili S (2020) A comparative
study of recent non-traditional methods for mechanical design
optimization. Arch Comput Methods Eng 27:1031–1048
3. Holland JH (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems.
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor
4. Storn R, Price K (1995) differential evolution – a simple and
efficient adaptive scheme for global optimization over continu-
ous spaces. Technical Report TR-95–012, ICSI
14375
5. Beyer HG, Schwefel HP (2002) Evolution strategies – a com-
prehensive introduction. Nat Comput 1:3–52
6. Koza JR (1992) Genetic programming II, automatic discovery of
reusable subprograms. MIT Press, Cambridge
7. Simon D (2008) Biogeography-based optimization. IEEE Trans
Evol Comput 12:702–713
8. Rashedi E, Neamabadi-pour H, Saryazdi S (2009) GSA: a
gravitational search algorithm. Inf Sci 13:2232–2248
9. Erol OK, Eksin I (2006) A new optimization method: big bang-
big crunch. Adv Eng Softw 37:106–111
10. Eskendar H, Sadollah A, Bahreininejad A, Hamdi M (2012)
Water Cycle Algorithm-A novel metaheuristic optimization
algorithm for solving constrained engineering optimization
problems. Comput Struct 110–111:151–166
11. Kaveh A, Talathari S (2010) A novel heuristic optimization
method: charged system search. Acta Mech 213:267–289
12. Kennedy J, Eberhart RC (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In:
Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on neural
networks, Perth, Australia, pp 1942–1948
13. Dorigo M (1992) Optimization, learning and natural algorithms.
PhD Thesis, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
14. Karaboga D (2005) An Idea based on honey bee swarm for
numerical optimization. Technical Report TR06, Erciyes Fac-
ulty, Computer engineering Department
15. Mirjalili S, Gandomi AH, Mirjalili SZ, Saremi S, Faris H,
Mirjalili SM (2017) Salp swarm algorithm: a bio-inspired
optimizer for engineering design problems. Adv Eng Softw
114:163–191
16. Rao RV, Savsani VJ, Vakharia DP (2011) Teaching-learning
based optimization: a novel method for constrained mechanical
design optimization problems. Comput Aided Des 43:303–315
17. Moosavi SHS, Bardsiri VK (2019) Poor and rich optimization: a
new human-based and multi population algorithm. Eng Appl
Artif Intel 86:165–181
18. Geem ZW, Kim JH, Loganathan GV (2001) A new heuristic
optimization algorithm: Harmony search. SIMULATION
76:60–68
123
14376
19. Atashpaz-Gargari E, Lucas C (2007) Imperialist competitive
algorithm: an algorithm for optimization inspired by imperialist
competition. In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE congress on
evolutionary computation, pp 4661–4667
20. Wolpert DH, Macready WG (1997) No free lunch theorems for
optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 1:67–82
21. Diab AAZ, Ali H, Abdul-Ghaffar HI, Abdelselam HA, El Sattar
MA (2021) Accurate parameters extraction of PEMFC model
based on metaheuristic algorithms. Energy Rep 7:6854–6867
22. Raji S, Dehnamaki A, Somee B, Mahdiani MR (2022) A new
approach in well placement optimization using metaheuristic
algorithms. J Pet Sci Eng 215:110640
23. Kumar M, Sahu A, Mitra P (2021) A comparison of different
metaheuristics for the quadratic assignment problem in accel-
erated systems. Appl Soft Comput 100:106927
24. Lara-Montano OD, Gomez-Castro FI, Gutierrez-Antonio C
(2021) Comparison of the performance of different meta-
heuristic methods for the optimization of shell-and-tube heat
exchangers. Comput Chem Eng 152:107403
25. Abdor-Sierra JA, Merchan-Crus EA, Rodrigues-Canizo RG
(2022) A comparative analysis of metaheuristic algorithms for
solving the inverse kinematics of robot manipulators. Results
Eng 16:100597
26. Sonmez M (2018) Performance comparison of metaheuristic
algorithms for the optimal design of space trusses. Arab J Sci
Eng 43:5265–5281
27. Ahmed AN, Lam TV, Hung TV, Thieu NV, Kisi O, El-Shafie A
(2021) A comprehensive comparison of recent developed
metaheuristic algorithms for streamflow time series forecasting
problem. Appl Soft Comput 105:107282
28. Meng Z, Li G, Wang X, Sait SM, Yıldız AR (2021) Compara-
tive study of metaheuristic algorithms for reliability-based
design optimization problems. Arch Comput Methods Eng
28:1853–1869
29. Katebi J, Shoaei-parchin M, Shariati M, Trung NT, Khorami M
(2020) Developed comparative analysis of metaheuristic opti-
mization algorithms for optimal active control of structures. Eng
Comput 36:1539–1558
30. Naranjo JAL, Alcaraz JAS, Miguel CRTS, Rojas JCP, Espinal
A, Gonzalez HR (2019) Comparison of metaheuristic opti-
mization algorithms for dimensional synthesis of a spherical
parallel manipulator. Mech Mach Theory 140:586–600
31. Mohseni S, Brent AC, Burmester D (2020) A comparison of
metaheuristics for the optimal capacity planning of an isolated,
battery-less, hydrogen-based micro-grid. Appl Energy
259:114224
32. Gupta S, Abderazek H, Yıldız BS, Yıldız AR, Mirjalili S, Sait
SM (2021) Comparison of metaheuristic optimization algo-
rithms for solving constrained mechanical design optimization
problems. Expert Syst Appl 183:115351
33. Ezugwu AE, Adeleke OJ, Akinyelu AA, Viriri S (2020) A
conceptual comparison of several metaheuristic algorithms on
continuous optimization problems. Neural Comput Appl
32:6207–6251
34. Ahmadianfar I, Heidari AA, Gandomi AH, Chu X, Chen H
(2021) RUN beyond the metaphor: an efficient optimization
algorithm based on Runge Kutta method. Expert Syst Appl
181:115079
35. Ahmadianfar I, Bozorg-Haddad O, Chu X (2020) Gradient-
based optimizer: A new metaheuristic optimization algorithm.
Inf Sci 540:131–159
36. Abualigah L, Abd-Elaziz M, Sumari P, Geem ZW, Gandomi AH
(2022) Reptile search algorithm (RSA): a nature-inspired meta-
heuristic optimizer. Expert Syst Appl 191:116158
123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
37. Hashim FA, Hussien AG (2022) Snake optimizer: a novel
metaheuristic optimization algorithm. Knowl-Based Syst
242:108320
38. Faramarzi A, Heidarinejad M, Stephens B, Mirjalili S (2020)
Equilibrium optimizer: a novel optimization algorithm. Knowl-
Based Syst 191:105190
39. Zhao W, Zhang Z, Wang L (2020) Manta ray foraging opti-
mization: An effective bio-inspired optimizer for engineering
applications. Eng Appl Artif Intel 87:103300
40. Abdollahzadeh B, Gharehchopogh FS, Mirjalili S (2021) Afri-
can vultures optimization algorithm: a new nature-inspired
metaheuristic algorithm for global optimization problems.
Comput Ind Eng 158:107408
41. Abualigah L, Yousri D, Abd-Elaziz EAA, Al-qaness MAA,
Gandomi AH (2021) Aquila optimizer: a novel meta-heuristic
optimization algorithm. Comput Ind Eng 157:107250
42. Heidari AA, Mirjalili S, Faris H, Aljarah I, Mafarja M, Chen H
(2019) Harris hawks optimization: algorithm and applciations.
Futur Gener Comput Syst 97:849–872
43. Sulaiman MH, Mustaffa Z, Saari MM, Daniyal H (2020) Bar-
nacles Mating optimizer: a new bio-inspired algorithm for
solving engineering optimization problems. Eng Appl Artif Intel
87:103330
44. Nassef AM, Houssein EH, Helmy EB, Fathy A, Alghayti ML,
Rezk H (2022) Optimal configuration strategy based on modi-
fied Runge Kutta optimizer to mitigate partial shading condition
in photovoltaic systems. Energy Rep 8(7242):7262
45. Rezk H, Ferahtia S, Djeroui A, Chouder A, Houari A, Mach-
moum M, Abdelkareem MA (2022) Optimal parameter esti-
mation strategy of PEM fuel cell using gradient-based optimizer.
Energy 239:122096
46. Thirumoorthy K, Munesswaran K (2022) (2022) An elitism
based self-adaptive multi-population poor and rich optimization
algorithm for grouping similar documents. J Ambient Intell
Humaniz Comput 13:1925
47. Ekinci S, İzci D (2022) Enhanced reptile search algorithm with
Levy flight vehicle cruise control system design. Evol Intell.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-022-00745-8
48. Hu G, Yang R, Abbas M, Wei G (2023) BEESO: multi-strategy
boosted snake-inspired optimizer for engineering applications.
J Bionic Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42235-022-00330-w
49. Sun F, Yu J, Zhao A, Zhou M (2021) Optimizing multi-chiller
dispatch in HVAC-system using equilibrium optimization
algorithm. Energy Rep 7:5997–6013
50. Hu G, Li M, Wang X, Wei G, Chang CT (2022) An enhanced
manta ray foraging optimization algorithm for shape optimiza-
tion of complex CCG-Ball curves. Knowl-Based Syst 24:108071
51. Chen L, Huang H, Tang P, Yao D, Yang H, Ghadimi N (2022)
Optimal modeling of combined cooling, heating, and power
systems using developed African vulture optimization: a case
study in watersport complex. Energy Sources A Recov Util
Environ Eff 44:4296–4317
52. Ekinci S, İzci D, Abualigah LA (2023) A novel balanced Aquila
optimizer using random learning and Nelder-Mead simplex
search mechanisms for air-fuel ratio system control. J Braz Soc
Mech Sci Eng 45:68
53. Li M, Li K, Qin Q (2023) A rockburst prediction model based
on extreme learning machine with improved Harris Hawks
optimization and its application. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech
134:104978
54. Liu B, Wang H, Tseng ML, Li Z (2022) State of charge esti-
mation for lithium-ion batteries based on improved barnacle
mating optimizer and support vector machine. J Energy Storage
55:105830
55. Akay B, Karaboga D, Gorkemli B, Kaya E (2021) A survey on
the Artificial Bee Colony algorithm variants for binary, integer,
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
and mixed integer programming problems. Appl Soft Comput
106:107351
56. Lourenço HR, Martin OC, Stützle T (2003) Iterated local search.
In: Handbook of metaheuristics. vol 57, pp 320–353, Springer
57. Aarts EHL, van Laarhoven PJM (1989) Simulated annealing: an
introduction. Stat Neerl 43:31–52
58. Price KV, Storn RM, Lampinen JA (2005) Differential evolu-
tion: a practical approach to global optimization. Springer-
Verlag, Berlin
59. Ficarella L, Lamberti L, Degertekin SO (2021) Comparison of
three novel hybrid metaheuristic algorithms for structural opti-
mization problems. Comput Struct 244:106395
60. Bertolini M, Mezzogori D, Zammori F (2019) Comparison of
new metaheuristics, for the solution of an integrated jobs-
maintenance scheduling problem. Expert Syst Appl
122:118–136
61. Camargo MP, Rueda JL, Erlich I, Ano O (2014) Comparison of
emerging metaheuristic algorithms for optimal hydrothermal
system operation. Swarm Evol Comput 18:83–96
62. Ali MM, Khompatraporn C, Zabinsky, (2005) A numerical
evaluation of several stochastic algorithms on selected contin-
uous global optimization test problems. J Glob Optim
31:635–672
63. Civicioglu P, Besdok E (2013) A conceptual comparison of the
Cuckoo search, particle swarm optimization, differential evo-
lution, artificial bee colony algorithms. Artif Intel Rev
39:315–346
64. Ma H, Simon D, Fei M, Chen Z (2013) On the equivalences and
differences of evolutionary algorithms. Eng Appl Artif Intel
26:2397–2407
65. Ma H, Ye S, Simon D, Fei M (2017) Conceptual and numerical
comparisons of swarm intelligence optimization algorithms.
Soft Comput 21:3081–3100
66. Joseph SB, Dada EG, Abidemi A, Oyewola DO, Khammas BM
(2022) Metaheuristic algorithms for PID controller parameters
tuning: review, approaches and open problems. Heliyon
5:e09399
67. Abd Elaziz M, Elsheikh AH, Oliva D, Abualigah L, Lu S, Ewees
AA (2022) Advanced metaheuristic techniques for mechanical
design problems. Arch Comput Methods Eng 29:695–716
68. Milan ST, Rajabion L, Ranjbar H, Navimipour NJ (2019) Nature
inspired meta-heuristic algorithms for solving the load balancing
problem in cloud environments. Comput Oper Res 110:159–187
69. Sierra JAA, Cruz EAM, Canizo RGR (2022) A comparative
analysis of metaheuristic algorithms for solving the inverse
kinematics of robot manipulators. Results Eng 16:100597
70. Dokeroglu T, Deniz A, Kiziloz HE (2022) A comprehensive
survey on recent metaheuristics for feature selection. Neuro-
comput 494:269–296
71. Rawa M, AlKubaisy ZM, Alghamdi S, Refaat MM, Ali ZM,
Abdel Aleem SHE (2022) A techno-economic planning model
for integrated generation and transmission expansion in modern
power systems with renewables and energy storage using hybrid
Runge- Kutta – gradient- based optimization algorithms. Energy
Rep 8:6457–6479
72. Ewees AA, Ismail FH, Sahlol AT (2023) Gradient-based opti-
mizer improved by Slime Mould Algorithm for global opti-
mization and feature selection for diverse computation
problems. Expert Syst Appl 213:118872
73. Li S, Chen H, Wang M, Heidari AA, Mirjalili S (2020) Slime
mould algorithm: A new method for stochastic optimization.
Future Gener Comput Syst 111:300–323
74. Almotairi KH, Abualigah L (2022) Hybrid reptile search algo-
rithm and remora optimization algorithm for optimization tasks
and data clustering. Symmetry 14:458
14377
75. Jia H, Peng X, Lang C (2021) Remora optimization algorithm
expert. Syst Appl 185:115665
76. Al-Shourbaji I, Kachare PH, Alshatri S, Duraibi S, Elnaim B,
Abd-Elaziz M (2022) An efficient parallel reptile search algo-
rithm and snake optimizer approach for feature selection.
Mathematics 10:2351
77. Rizk-Allah RM, Hassanien AE (2023) A hybrid equilibrium
algorithm and pattern search technique for wind farm layout
optimization problem. ISA Trans 132:402–418
78. Hooke R, Jeeves TA (1961) Direct search solution of numerical
and statistical problems. J ACM 8:212–229
79. Zhong C, Li G, Meng Z, Li H, He W (2023) Multi-objective
SHADE with manta ray foraging optimizer for structural design
problems. Appl Soft Comput 134:110016
80. Tanabe R, Fukunaga A (2013) Success-history based parameter
adaptation for Differential Evolution. In: 2013 IEEE congress on
evolutionary computation, Cancun, Mexico, pp 71–78
81. Xiao Y, Guo Y, Cui H, Wang Y, Li J, Zhang Y (2022)
IHAOAVOA: A n improved hybrid aquila optimizer and Afri-
can vulture optimization algorithm for global optimization
problems Math Biosci Eng 19:10963–11017
82. Ramchandran M, Mirjalili S, Heris MN, Parvathysankar DS,
Sundaram A, Gnanakkan CARC (2022) A hybrid grasshopper
optimization algorithm and harris hawks optimizer for combined
heat and power economic dispatch problem. Eng Appl Artif
Intell 111:104753
83. Saremi S, Mirjalili S, Lewis A (2017) Grasshopper optimisation
algorithm: theory and application. Adv Eng Softw 105:30–47
84. Mirjalili S (2016) SCA: a sine cosine algorithm for solving
optimization problems. Knowl Based Syst 96:120–133
85. Abd-Elaziz M, Ewes AA, Al-qaness MAA, Abualigah L, Ibra-
him RA (2022) Sine-Cosine-Barnacles algorithm optimizer with
disruption operator for global optimization and automatic data
clustering. Expert Syst Appl 207:117993
86. Ypma TJ (1995) Historical development of the Newton-Raph-
son method. SIAM Rev 37:531–551
87. Yang XS (2010) Nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithm.
Luniver Press, Frome
88. Kaveh A, Mahdavi VR (2015) A hybrid CBO-PSO algorithm for
optimal design of truss structures with dynamic constraints.
Appl Soft Comput 34:260–273
89. Gezici H, Livatyalı H (2022) Chaotic Harris hawks optimization
algorithm. J Comput Des Eng 9:216–245
90. Seyyedabbasi A, Aliyev R, Kiani F, Gulle MU, Basyildiz H,
Shah MA (2021) Hybrid algorithms based on combining rein-
forcement learning and metaheuristic methods to solve global
optimization problems. Knowl-Based Syst 223:107044
91. Andrei N (2008) An Unconstrained Optimization Test Functions
Collection. Adv Modell Optim 10:147–161
92. Floudas CA, Pardalos PM, Adjiman CS, Esposito WR, Gümüş
ZH, Harding ST, Klepeis JL, Meyer CA, Schweiger CA (1999)
Handbook of test problems in local and global optimization.
Springer
93. Shaban H, Houssein EH, Perez-Cisneros M, Oliva Di Yassan
AY, Ismaeel AAK, AbdElminaam DS, DebSaid SM (2021)
Identification of parameters in photovoltaic models through a
Runge Kutta optimizer. Mathematics 9:2313
94. Chen H, Ahmadianfar I, Liang G, Bakhsizadeh H, Azad B, Chu
X (2022) A successful candidate strategy with Rung-Kutta
optimization for multi-hydropower reservoir optimization.
Expert Syst Appl 209:118383
95. Premkumar M, Jangir P, Sowmya R (2021) MOGBO: a new
multiobjective gradient-based optimizer for real-world structural
optimization problems. Knowl-Based Syst 218:106856
123
14378
96. Thirumoorthy K, Muneeswaran K (2021) Feature selection
using hybrid poor and rich optimization algorithm for text
classification. Pattern Recognit Lett 147:63–70
97. Ekinci S, Izci D, Abu Zitar R, Alsoud AR, Abualigah L (2022)
Development of Levy flight-based reptile search algorithm with
local search ability for power systems engineering design
problems. Neural Comput Appl 34:20263–20283
98. Al-Shourbaji I, Helian N, Sun Y, Alshatri S, Abd-Elaziz M
(2022) Boosting ant colony optimization with reptile search
algorithm for churn prediction. Mathematics 10:1031
99. Rawa M (2022) Towards avoiding cascading failures in trans-
mission expansion planning of modern active power systems
using hybrid snake-sine cosine optimization algorithm. Mathe-
matics 10:1323
100. Ahmed S, Ghosh KK, Mirjalili S, Sarkar S (2021) AIEOU:
automata-based improved equilibrium optimizer with U-shaped
transfer function for feature selection. Knowl-Based Syst
228:107283
101. Abdul-hamied DT, Shaheen AM, Salem WA, Gabr WI, El-se-
hiemy RA (2020) Equilibrium optimizer based multi dimension
operation of hybrid AC/DC grids. Alex Eng J 59:4787–4803
102. Hassan MH, Houssein EH, Mahdy MA, Kamel S (2021) An
improved Manta ray foraging optimizer for cost-effective
emission dispatch problems. Eng Appl Artif Intel 100:104155
103. Abd-Elaziz M, Yousri D, Al-qaness MAA, AbdelAty AM,
Radwan AG, Ewees AA (2021) A Grunwald-Letnikov based
Manta ray foraging optimizer for global optimization and image
segmentation. Eng Appl Artif Intel 98:104105
104. Kahraman HT, Akbel M, Duman S (2022) Optimization of
optimal power flow problem using multi-objective manta ray
foraging optimizer. Appl Soft Comput 116:108334
105. Gürses D, Mehta P, Sait SM, Yildiz AR (2022) African vultures
optimization algorithm for optimization of shell and tube heat
exchangers. Mater Test 64:1234–1241
106. Ghazi GA, Hasanian HM, Al-Ammar EA, Turky RA, Ko W,
Park S, Choi HJ (2022) African vulture optimization algorithm
based PI controllers for performance enhancement of hybrid
renewable- energy systems. Sustainability 14:8172
107. Kumar C, Mary DM (2021) Parameter estimation of three-diode
solar photovoltaic model using an Improved African Vultures
optimization algorithm with Newton-Raphson method. J Com-
put Electron 20:2563–2593
108. AlRassas AM, Al-qaness MAA, Ewees AA, Ren S, Abd-Elaziz
M, Damasevicius R, Krilavicius T (2021) Optimized ANFIS
model using aquila optimizer for oil production forecasting.
Processes 9:1194
109. Pashaei E (2022) Mutation-based Binary Aquila optimizer for
gene selection in cancer classification. Comput Biol Chem
101:107767
110. Ali MH, Salawudeen AT, Kamel S, Salau HB, Habil SM (2022)
Single and multi-objective modified aquila optimizer for optimal
multiple renewable energy resources in distribution network.
Mathematics 10:2129
111. Houssein EH, Hosney ME, Elhoseny M, Oliva D, Mohamed
WM, Hasaballah M (2020) Hybrid Harris hawks optimization
with cuckoo search for drug design and discovery in chemin-
formatics. Sci Rep 10:14439
112. Abbasi A, Firouzi B, Sendur P (2021) On the application of
Harris hawks optimization (HHO) algorithm to the design of
microchannel heat sinks. Eng Comput 37:1409–1428
113. Abbasi A, Firouzi B, Sendur P, Heidari AA, Chen H, Tiwari R
(2021) Multi strategy Gaussian Harris hawks optimization for
fatigue life of tapered roller bearings. Eng Comput 3:1–27
114. Razak AAA, Nasir ANK, NMA Ghani, NAM Rizai, MFM
Jusof, Muhamad IH (2020) Multi-objective barnacle mating
123
Neural Computing and Applications (2023) 35:14275–14378
optimziation for control design of a pendulum system. In:
Emerging technology in computing, communication and elec-
tronics (ETTTCE), pp 1–5
115. Sulaiman MH, Mustaffa Z (2022) Optimal chiller loading
solution for energy conservation using Barnacles mating opti-
mizer algorithm. Res Control Opt 7:100109
116. Rajesh P, Shajin FH, Anand NV (2021) An efficient estimation
model for induction motor using BMO-RBFNN technique.
Process Integr Optim Sustain 5:777–792
117. Liao T, Stuetzle T (2013) Benchmark results for a simple hybrid
algorithm on the CEC 2013 benchmark set for real parameter
optimization. In: Proceedings of IEEE congress on evolutionary
computation, pp 1938–1944.
118. Kumar A, Wu G, Ali MZ, Mallipeddi R, Suganthan PN, Das S
(2020) A test-suite of non-convex constrained optimization
problems from the real-world and some baseline results. Swarm
Evol Comput 56:100693
119. Kim TH, Maruta I, Sugie T (2010) A simple and efficient
constrained particle swarm optimization and its application to
engineering design problems. Proc Inst Mech Eng C J Mech Eng
Sci 224:389–400
120. Turgut OE, Turgut MS (2023) Local search enhanced Aquila
optimization algorithm ameliorated with an ensemble of muta-
tion strategies for complex optimization problems. Math Com-
put Simul 206:302–374
121. Golcuk I (2021) A comparative analysis of constraint-handling
mechanisms for solving engineering design problems. J Ind Eng
32:201–216
122. Arora JS (1989) Introduction to optimum design. McGraw-Hill,
New York, US
123. Schittkowski K (1987) More test examples for nonlinear pro-
gramming codes. In: Lecture notes in economics and mathe-
matical systems, Springer, Berlin
124. Gu L, Yang RJ, Cho CH, Makowski M, Faruque M, Li Y (2001)
Optimization and robustness for crashworthiness. Int J Veh Des
82:241–256
125. Coello CAC (2000) Use of a self-adaptive penalty approach for
engineering optimization problems. Comput Ind 41:112–127
126. Askari Q, Younas I, Saeed M (2020) Political optimizer: a novel
socio-inspired metaheuristic for global optimization. Knowl-
Based Syst 195:105790
127. Andrei N (2013) Nonlinear optimization applications using the
GAMS technology, 1st edn. Springer-Verlag, Berlin
128. Hock W, Schittkowski K (1981) Test examples for nonlinear
programming codes. In: Lecture notes in economics and math-
ematical systems, Springer, Berlin
129. Coello CA (2000) Treating constraints as objectives for singe-
objective evolutionary optimization. Eng Optim 32:275–308
130. Bracken J, McCormick GP (1968) Selected applications of
nonlinear programming. Wiley, New York
131. Datseris P (1982) Weight minimization of a speed reducer by
heuristic and decomposition technique. Mech Mach Theory
17:255–262
132. Dembo RS (1976) A set of geometric programming test prob-
lems and their solution. Math Program 10:192–213
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the
accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the
terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.