Abstract
Chimp optimization algorithm (ChoA) has a wholesome attitude roused by chimp’s amazing thinking and hunting ability with a sensual movement for finding the optimal solution in the global search space. Classical Chimps optimizer algorithm has poor convergence and has problem to stuck into local minima for high-dimensional problems. This research focuses on the improved variants of the chimp optimizer algorithm and named as Boosted chimp optimizer algorithms. In one of the proposed variants, the existing chimp optimizer algorithm has been combined with SHO algorithm to improve the exploration phase of the existing chimp optimizer and named as IChoA-SHO and other variant is proposed to improve the exploitation search capability of the existing ChoA. The testing and validation of the proposed optimizer has been done for various standard benchmarks and Non-convex, Non-linear, and typical engineering design problems. The proposed variants have been evaluated for seven standard uni-modal benchmark functions, six standard multi-modal benchmark functions, ten standard fixed-dimension benchmark functions, and 11 types of multidisciplinary engineering design problems. The outcomes of this method have been compared with other existing optimization methods considering convergence speed as well as for searching local and global optimal solutions. The testing results show the better performance of the proposed methods excel than the other existing optimization methods.
Similar content being viewed by others
1 Introduction
Nowadays, artificial intelligence as well as machine learning are rapidly increasing, because it is easy to implement to solve real-life issues which are continuous or discontinuous, constrained or unconstrained [1, 2]. For handling these characteristics using conventional approaches such as the quasi-Newton method, sequential quadratic programming, fast steepest and conjugate gradient, etc. faced difficulties to solve them [3, 4]. In the existing research, all these methods were tested experimentally and noticed that they are not exactly sufficient to obtain effectual solutions to non-continuous, non-differential problems and real-life multi-model problems [5]. Thus, the meta-heuristics algorithm came into the picture which is very simple to understand and easily be implemented to handle several issues. Generally, in optimization, techniques depend on inhabitants to find out the solution on optimal and sub-optimal which is closer to an exact optimal value, located at the nearest point. In this algorithm, the optimization process starts unless the population set of the individuals are generated and then relying on optimization method every individual act for candidate solution for the problem. Thus, by updating the present location with the best position, the population will be up-to-date by reaching maximum iterations. In modern research, the meta-heuristics algorithm which gives better efficiency, less expensive, and successful in implementation is given prior importance to utilize.
With such traits integrated, a new hybrid meta-heuristics optimization approach, ICHIMP-SHO algorithm is suggested in this research that depends on nature-lead and its mathematical formulation of search functions was designed to offer good competitiveness to current existing meta-heuristics optimizers. The intention to design this optimization technique is motivated by individual intelligence and sensual movement of social carnivores, named Chimps for their mass hunting mannerism in targeting the prey [6]. Hence, a stochastic and meta-heuristic mathematical model intended to handle various optimization problems and is verified by testing experimentally in this research work.
It is true that optimization technique is a large field of study, and researchers are rapidly applying new approaches to provide better answers to various issues that target specific obstacles and can succeed in their discoveries. In research, old techniques give way to new approaches, which use a hybrid unique strategy to eliminate inefficient ways from the present. In this suggested study, a collection of research articles is offered in the literature review to enumerate the flaws of modern algorithms.
Broadly speaking, meta-heuristics are of two types, named single solution-based meta-heuristics and population solution-based meta-heuristics. Improved Chimp (ICHIMP) variant belongs to swarm intelligence-based algorithm of the categories of population meta-heuristics, which is combined along with newly introduced swarm intelligence-based algorithm called Spotted Hyena Optimizer algorithm and named as Improved Chimp-Spotted Hyena Optimizer (ICHIMP-SHO) algorithm which is introduced in this paper. On the whole, this algorithm is simple to apply and involves very few operators than other population-based algorithms with minimum computational efforts.
The remaining parts of the present article contain literature review on related algorithms in Sect. 2, and concepts of improved chimp optimizer (ICHIMP) algorithm are discussed in Sect. 3. Sections 4 and 5 describe spotted hyena optimizer (SHO) algorithm and proposed ICHIMP-SHO algorithm, respectively. Standard benchmark functions are described in Sect. 6. Section 7 showcases the outcomes and comparison of results with other existing algorithms. Testing of 11 engineering-based optimization design problems are shown in Sect. 8, and finally, conclusion and future scope of the paper are presented in Sect 9.
2 Literature review
Meta-heuristics approaches have been frequently used in recent years due to their efficiency when compared to other approaches. These algorithms provide a more effective answer to real-world optimization problems. As a result, new meta-heuristics algorithms must be introduced to overcome these optimization challenges. Meta-heuristics optimization algorithms (MOAs) are important in the ever-increasing use of engineering applications. Because of the complexity of today's situations, the need for the most up-to-date MOAs is quickly growing.
It acquires distinct profits as: (i) Its natural algorithmic structure helps to implement it effortlessly; (ii) this suits real-life problems in engineering as it is a derivation-free mechanism; (iii) when compared to traditional optimization algorithms, this has better ability to minimize local optima; (iv) this is flexible in applying on different problems as its structure does not need any particular changes; (v) because of its simplicity and efficiency, this can be applied simultaneously in hardware applications as well as in computing applications. [like Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA)] [6].
To limit the drawbacks of classical methods, meta-heuristics search algorithms were introduced. Few such algorithms are Biogeography-based optimization (BBO) [7], Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) [8], Differential Evolution (DE) [9], Genetic algorithm (GA) [10], Cuckoo Search algorithm (CSA) [11], Bacterial Foraging algorithm (BFA) [12], Flower pollination algorithm (FPA) [13], Chemical Reaction optimization (CRO) [14], Firefly algorithm (FA) [15], Immune algorithm (IA) [16], Teaching–Learning-based optimization algorithm [17], Particle Swarm optimization algorithm (PSO) [18], Grey wolf optimization (GWO) [19], Social spider for constrained optimization (SSO-C) [20], Gravitational Search algorithm (GSA) [21], and Bat algorithm (BA) [22]. The reasons how meta-heuristics algorithms are classified are explained in [23, 24], and with reference to [25, 26], meta-heuristics algorithms are considered by natural behavior and divided as single solution-based and population-based algorithms. Examples for single-based algorithms and population-based algorithms are: Variable Neighbourhood search (VNS) [27], Vortex search algorithm (VS) [28], whereas Simulated Annealing (SA) [29], Genetic algorithm (GA) [30], and Tabu search (TS) [31] have an emerging way to find a solution for combinatorial real-world problems in covering and scheduling, Cuckoo search algorithm (CSA) [32], Gravitational search algorithm (GSA) [33], Evolutionary programming (EP) [34] are a fast technique and classical evolutionary programmings were performed on real-world problems. Harmony search (HS) [35] is inspired using the music production cycle analogy. HS may not need the initial values of the variables for decision. Forest Optimization Algorithm (FOA) [36] is for finding maximum value and minimum value with a real application and found that the FOA can typically find solutions correctly. Grey Wolf Optimizer Algorithm (GWO) [19] work was inspired by a Swarm intelligence optimization through the grey wolves and the suggested model imitated the grey wolves' social hierarchical and hunting behavior. Moth Flame Optimizer (MFO) [37], the key influence of this optimizer is the moth navigation system called transverse orientation in nature. Moths migrate in darkness by keeping a preset moon angle, a very effective method for long-distance flying in a straight line. However, such fancy insects are stuck around artificial lights in a useless/deadly spiralling course. Stochastic Fractal Search Algorithm (SFS) [38] centered on random fractals to address global optimization problems with continuous variables, both constrained and unconstrained. In the entire optimization, if only one solution carries then it is known as a single solution-based algorithm and if there are many different solutions in the whole optimization phase, then it is a population-based algorithm, and as such, the solution may coincide with the optimum very nearly.
The two main components of meta-heuristics are exploitation and exploration [25]. Exploration extends searching widely to produce many different solutions, whereas exploitation focuses on searching in a specified area, assuming that area is the best for the present. It is very much important and necessary to balance these two components exploitation and exploration in MOA to keep away the fluctuations in the rate of convergence, as well preventing local and global optimum [39, 40]. Exploitation indicates single solution-based meta-heuristics and exploration indicates populated solution-based meta-heuristics.
Optimization problems can find solutions by nature-inspired MOAs' physical or biological behavior implementation. They are classified into four main classes (Fig. 1) [24, 41]: Swarm Intelligence based algorithm, Evolutionary algorithms (EAs), Human-based, and Physics-based algorithms. The below is the survey made on the algorithms which fall under these four categories. Among them, first, the Evolutionary algorithms replicate features of biological generation like recombining, mutation, and selecting processes [23]. The famous Evolutionary algorithms are Differential Evolution (DE) which presented the minimization of potentially nonlinear and non-differentiable continuous space functions. It only requires some strong control variables, taken from a perfectly defined number interval, Evolutionary Strategy (ES) [42], Biogeography-based optimization (BBO) made analysis of biological species, that can be used to deduce algorithms suitable for optimization. Evolutionary Programming (EP) and Genetic algorithm (GA) are drawn from Darwinian Theory. Second, as per [41, 43], Physics-based algorithms are analogous to natural physical laws. The famous algorithms are Quantum Mechanics-Based (QMBA) and Gravitational Search (GSA) which were influenced by the Gravitational Law and the theory of mass interaction. GSA utilizes Newtonian mechanics theory, and its search agent is the set of masses. Few more physics-based algorithms are Central Force Optimization (CFO) [44], Charged System Search (CSS) [45], Electromagnetism Like Algorithms (ELA) [46], Lightning Attachment Procedure Optimization (LAPO) [41], Big-Bang Big-Crunch (BBBC) [47], and Adaptive gbest-guided gravitational search algorithm (AGBGSA) [48]. Third, MOAs are inspired by natural human behavior. The best examples of them are Teaching–Learning-based optimization (TLBO) which comprises of two phases, teaching phase and learner phase, Imperialist Competitive Algorithm (ICA) [49], and Socio Evolution and Learning Optimization (SELO) [50]. Fourth, MOAs imitate the social behavior of organisms like swarms, shoals, flocks, or herds [51]. Few algorithms under this class are Particle Swarm optimization (PSO), Bat algorithm (BA), Ant colony optimization (ACO), Improved monarch butterfly optimization algorithm (MBO) [52], Cuckoo Search algorithm (CSA), Krill herd (KH) [53], Grey wolf optimizer (GWO), Multi-Objective Grasshopper optimization algorithm (MOGOA) [54], binary salp swarm algorithm (BSSA) [55], hybrid dragonfly optimization algorithm and MLP (DOA-MLP) [56], and Improved Whale Trainer [57].
A brief of recently developed algorithms to find solution for optimization problems: Harris Hawks optimizer (HHO) [25] is being introduced to tackle different tasks of optimization. The strategy is influenced by nature's cooperative activities and by the patterns of predatory birds, Harris' hawks. Henry Gas Solubility Optimization Algorithm (HGSO) [58] imitates the procedures of Henry’s rule. HGSO aimed at matching the production and conservation capabilities of check room and overcome local optimum. Photon Search Algorithm (PSA) [59] got inspired by the properties of photons in the field of physics. Chaotic Krill Herd Algorithm (CKH) [60] combined chaos theory with Krill Herd Optimization procedure to speed up global convergence. Bird Swarm Algorithm (BSA) [61] depends on social interactions of swarm intelligence with bird swarm. Lightning Search algorithm (LSA) [62] is a meta-heuristic technique used to resolve problems on constraint optimization by following lightning phenomenon applying the concept of fast-moving particles called projectiles. Multi-Verse Optimizer (MVO) [63], an environment lead heuristic algorithm, relies on three stages named: wormhole, black hole, and white hole. Virus Colony search (VCS) [64] is an environment-inspired method that affects the spreading and infection stages of the host cells followed by the virus for its survival in the cell environment. To find solutions for real-time problems, the Grasshopper Optimization algorithm (GOA) [65] follows grasshopper swarms behavior. Based on the thinking ability of the chicken swarm, the Chicken Swarm Optimization algorithm (CSO) [66] came into existence. Grey Wolf Optimizer-Sine Cosine Algorithm (GWO-SCA) [67] is a meta-heuristics optimizer correlating the nature of wolf with mathematical sine–cosine concepts. Crow Particle Swarm Optimization algorithm (CPO) [68] is a hybrid combination of crow search algorithm and particle swarm optimization. Whale Optimization technique (WOA) [69] is a hybridized combinatorial meta-heuristics technique of Whale and swarm human-based optimizers for finding perfect exploratory and convergence capabilities. Spotted Hyena Optimizer (SHO) [70] is a new meta-heuristic algorithm encouraged by the natural collaborative behavior of spotted hyenas in searching, encircling, and attacking the prey. Multi-Objective Spotted Hyena Optimizer (MOSHO) [71] is developed to reduce multiple objective functions. A modified adaptive butterfly optimization algorithm (BOA) [72] is developed based on butterfly observation that produces its fragrance when traveling in search of food from one place to another place. Binary Spotted Hyena Optimizer (SHO) [73] is a meta-heuristic algorithm introduced based on hunting behavior of spotted hyena which deals with discrete optimization problems. Hybrid Harris Hawks pattern search algorithm (HHO-PS) [74] is a meta-heuristic optimizer developed to figure out a newer version of Harris Hawks for finding a solution in local and global search. The Hybrid Harris Hawks-Sine–Cosine method (HHO-SCA) [75] is influenced by the virtuous behavior of Harris Hawks which added up with mathematical concepts of sine and cosine to increase its ability in exploration and exploitation phases. Bernstrain-Search Differential Evolution algorithm (EBSD) [76] belongs to a family of universal differential evolution algorithms, which is proposed based on mutation and crossover operators. Reliability-based design optimization algorithm (RBDO) [77] deals with the uncertainty factors like global convergence, complicated design variables. Table 1 presents a brief review on population based meta-heuristics.
2.1 Literature survey on CHIMP variants
A specific related study has been provided in this area to investigate information regarding current developments linked to CHIMP variations, and recently developed methods by various researchers are mentioned. As demonstrated by the stated literature studies, the researcher has built a wide range of meta-heuristic and hybrid versions of CHIMP to solve various sorts of stochastic challenges. Various academics evaluated real-time troubles such as data mining, climatic and environment concerns, medication and pharmaceuticals, engineering design issues, picture segmentation, power flow, solar PV modules, and so on using a heuristic technique. The capacity of any algorithm to find a suitable balance between intensification and diversity determines the accuracy of its answer. According to research, slow convergence is a common problem with most heuristic algorithms. As a result, the computational efficiency suffers. As a result, the use of hybrid algorithms to improve solution efficiency is becoming increasingly popular. Various CHIMP approaches have also been successfully employed by many researchers to maximize specific objective functions. The ultimate objective of these methods is to discover the optimal solution to a problem.
Researchers have recently created novel CHIMP versions for a variety of applications one of which is the DCELM-ChOA algorithm; first, ELMs’ parameters are tuned dimensionally, and then, ChOA is applied to acclimatize input layer weights and moreover bias ELM to eventually shoot up the system’s stableness and reliability which was invented to obtain accurate X-ray for detection of COVID-19 positive [110]. RVFL-CHOA [111], the standard CHIMP, was enhanced with Random Vector Functional Link (RVFL); RVFL is used to foretell the instant power outcome of the network and the production of power of a solar dish/stirling power plant in a month. SSC [112] Sine–cosine and Spotted Hyena-based Chimp Optimization algorithm was introduced to fight against the limitations of slow convergence and stuck at local optima of ChoA technique and its efficacy was tested on six real-time engineering problems proving its effectiveness with other techniques. SChoA [113] deputes sine–cosine functions with chimp optimization algorithm to modify the equations of standard CHIMP in its hunting procedure in minimizing various limitations of ChoA technique.
The burning topic is the challenge of discovering solutions to difficulties for optimization. If the number of optimization parameters continues to grow, the complexity of optimization issues will increase. Furthermore, some of the proposed deterministic techniques are vulnerable to local optima entrapment. To solve such issues, meta-heuristic (MA) nature-inspired optimization approaches are used. The lack of starting assumptions and population dependency are two key features of these approaches. Even still, no optimization strategy has yet been discovered that can solve all optimization problems [114]. This inspired to create the Improved Chimp-Spotted Hyena Optimizer, a meta-heuristic hybrid variation optimizer (ICHIMP-SHO).
Chimp Optimization Algorithm (ChoA) [6] is designed based on the intelligence ability of Chimps in group hunts. This algorithm is developed to solve slow convergence speed, trapping in high-dimensional problems. Spotted Hyena optimizer (SHO) is a new upcoming optimizer influenced by the trapping behavior of spotted hyena. This technique benefits upon other meta-heuristics as follows:
(i) implementation of the algorithm is easy because of its simple structure;
(ii) it makes smooth continuous solutions in local optimum;
(iii) it has finer local and global search capability;
(iv) due to the continued diminution of search space, SHO convergence rate is faster. And this solves many types of engineering design problems [70].
Data mining feature selection and unit commitments are the major discrete optimization issues. To solve these problems, SHO is used. Feature selection targets unnecessary features and removes them from the data set and minimizes computation requirement, dimensionality, and results in better accuracy. In practice, real-time problems may have a huge number of features with relevant and irrelevant features. At that time, it is difficult for finding a solution. Then, the characteristic selection is treated as a combinatorial optimization problem. To solve this, selection feature problem binary meta-heuristics algorithms are used. Few examples are Binary Gravitational Search algorithm (BGSA) [115], Binary Grey Wolf optimizer (BGWO) [116], Binary Bat algorithm (BBA) [117, 118], and Binary Particle Swarm optimization (BPSO) [119].
Some of Spotted Hyena optimizer algorithm variants are: HPSSHO algorithm targets in improving hunting tactic of spotted hyena by merging standard SHO with Particle Swarm Optimization and tested on standard benchmark functions to prove its effectiveness in regulating to validate the significance of the proposed HPSSHO performance in assessment with state-of-the art optimization techniques; the parametric tests have been conducted on the benchmark functions [120]. HMOSHSSA [121], hybrid technique, uses MOSHO exploration skill, and SSA updates global search for finding best solution than the standard SHO. MOSHEPO [122] combined Multi-objective Spotted Hyena optimizer and Emperor Penguin Optimizer to contemplate many physical and operational constraints. To reduce heating effect, providing ventilation and air conditioning in the systems, a modification is carried out by merging four different meta-heuristic techniques: salp swarm, spotted hyena, wind-driven, and whale optimization algorithm with multilayer perceptron neural network to conquer computation time [123].
2.2 Novelty of proposed research work
(i) The spotted hyena optimizer is used to improve the local search capacity of ICHIMP in the suggested study.
(ii) The specifications of ICHIMP are not changed to preserve the original features of ICHIMP.
(iii) The ICHIMP-SHO method has been successfully applied for seven standard uni-modal benchmark functions, six standard multi-modal benchmark functions, ten standard fixed-dimension benchmark functions, and 11 types of interdisciplinary engineering design challenges.
(iv) The efficacy of the suggested algorithm has been validated by Wilcoxon Rank test.
(v) According to the comparative analysis shown in the results section, the proposed technique performs very well in terms of fitness evaluation and solution precision.
2.3 Background of suggested work
Chimps (Chimpanzees) correspond to a family of African genus of huge chimpanzee. The living style of them is close to humans. Brain-to-body ratio (BBR) of Chimps and Dolphins are alike to humans. It is noticed that mammals along BBR are generally understood to be brilliant [124]. The DNA of human and Chimp are alike as they are from same solitary ancestors that existed a few million years back. Chimps hunt in group. All the chimps in a group are not same according to their ability and brilliance, but they perform their duties as a part of a chimp colony. The hunting procedure entails their natural capacity to communicate among group to drive, chase, and assault in lower canopy. If the prey manages to flee throughout this procedure, the chimps will regroup and launch another attack. In this process, each chimp may switch places. The exhausted victim eventually runs out of energy and is attacked by the chimps. In this procedure, each matching approach has a probability based on the locations of chimps in a group and the prey. Despite a good convergence rate, CHIMP struggles to identify the most optimal solution. As a result, an improved approach is introduced to reduce this effect while increasing its effectiveness.
The literature survey on some newly developed CHIMP variants is: The paper [125] presented ChOA for training artificial neural network and proved best than other existing algorithms. Abbas et al. [126] used a new chimp optimization algorithm to train radial basis function neural network which is the utilized as a detector and further improvised to eradicate exploration and exploitation phases by upgrading ChOA and stood better with outstanding performance when compared with five well-noted algorithms. Heming Jia et al. applied enhanced chimp optimization algorithm (EChOA) in [127] and verified its effectiveness on standard benchmark functions in giving tough competition with other algorithms. Jianhao Wang et al. proposed Binary Chimp Optimization algorithm (BChOA) in [128] as the basic ChOA is not suitable in finding solutions for binary problems because of its continuous hunting nature. To evaluate its efficiency, it has been tested on 43 standard benchmark functions obtaining good results. ICHIMP in [129] is implemented to find solutions for dynamic economic load dispatch problems in single area. To overcome the drawbacks of ChOA to stuck in local optima, Di Wu et al. introduced Enhanced Chimp Optimization Algorithm (EChOA); here, highly disruptive polynomial mutation is involved to multiply the population in space to shoot up the diversity in the population, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient calculates the highest and lowest fitness among chimps, and later, Beetle Antenna Search Algorithm (BAS) is used to evade local optimum by chimps with lowest fitness. The combination of these three strategies enhances the exploration and exploitation phases and is tested on 17 benchmark datasets to prove its efficacy. Abdul Jabbar et al. [130] proposed a fresh hybrid algorithm by merging chimp optimization with conjugate gradient algorithm and tested on ten optimization functions, proving that the combination noted good results in gaining optimal solutions. Essam et al. [131] introduced opposition-based Levy Flight chimp optimizer (IChOA) in which opposition-based learning is involved in increasing pop in initializing stage of ChOA and Levy Flight is responsible for improving exploitation ability. This combination brought good results when compared with other algorithms in obtaining better thermography images to detect breast cancer. Bismin et al. [132] introduced Chimp-CoCoWa-AODV to enhance the MANET performance.
The recommended calculation aims to increase the local search capacity of CHIMP utilizing Improved Chimp Optimizer; in an effort to speed up ICHIMP, a combination of ICHIMP-SHO is introduced. Seven standard uni-modal benchmark functions, six standard multi-model benchmark functions, ten standard fixed-dimension benchmark functions, and 11 types of interdisciplinary engineering design challenges are all used to evaluate it. The findings are superior to those of other algorithms now in use.
3 Improved chimp optimizer
Chimps hunt very cleverly remembering the previous track of their attacks and are very closely related to swarm intelligence strategy, and based on this behavior, an innovative algorithm known as Chimp Optimization Algorithm (ChoA) is introduced. Chimps hunt in a group very intelligently based on two phases, namely, exploration and exploitation. Chimps are divided into four parties specifically named driver, barrier, chaser, and attacker. They streamline themselves by chasing, driving, blocking, and attacking in trapping the prey.
The mathematical equations [Eqs. (1) and (2)] represent driving and chasing of the prey
Here, \(\vec{A}\), \(\xi\), and \(\vec{C}\) = coefficient vectors, t = number of current iteration, \({\text{Chimp location vector}}\, = \vec{Y}_{\rm Chimp}\), and \(\vec{Y}_{\rm Prey} \, = \,{\text{the vector of prey position}}\).
Coefficient vectors \(\vec{A}\), \(\xi\), and \(\vec{C}\) are found out using Eqs. (3), (4), and (5).
In the improved chimp optimizer, Eqs. (1) and (2) have been modified as follows:
where ran(1) and ran(3) represent the random integer values and can be given by the following mathematical equation:
where SAN represents the search agent number;
\(\left| {\mathop A\limits^{ \to } } \right|\) Non-linearly decreases from 2.5 to 0 in both the phases iteratively. The vectors \(\nu_{1}\) and \(\nu_{2}\) are ranged [0, 1]. \(\xi\) the chaotic vector serves chimps in the process of trapping (Fig. 3a).
In this hunting process usually, an attacker chimp leads this operation followed by driver, barrier, and chaser. Mathematically, the actions of Chimps are imitated in the sequence initially starting from an attacker, driver, and then barrier; chaser will give better lead to notice the position of prey. Up till now, the location of Chimps is to be updated immediately and store the best positions of Chimps. This process is reflected mathematically in the Eqs. (7), (8), and (9)
In the modify chimp algorithm, the \(\vec{D}_{{\rm Attacker} }\) has been selected with the help of the following equation:
In the modify chimp algorithm, the \(\vec{D}_{\rm Barrier}\) has been selected with the help of the following equation:
In the modify chimp algorithm, the \(\vec{D}_{\rm Chaser}\) has been selected with the help of the following equation:
In the modify chimp algorithm, the \(\vec{D}_{\rm Driver}\) has been selected with the help of the following equation:
Equation (2) mentioned above can be used to determine the spot of attacker, barrier, chaser, and driver as per Eqs. (8a)–(8d), respectively
The overall final positions of all the chimps can be obtained by taking the mean of the attacker, barrier, chaser, and driver positions as per Eq. (9)
To generate the initial arbitrary position of search agents, the below mathematical equation can be adopted
The PSEUDO code for calculations of Y1, Y2, Y3, and Y4 are given in Fig. 2a, b.
4 Spotted hyena optimizer
The spotted hyena lives in a group of no less than 100 individuals. They embark on hunting expeditions in groups. Spotted, striped, brown, and aardwolf are the four classifications. These are colossal hunters who know what they are doing. They create a sound that sounds like a human chuckle to communicate with one another. They have spots on their bodies. They devise coordinated arrays to encourage organizational understanding among hyenas.
SHO is mathematically illustrated by three stages, i.e., hunting, encircling, and finally attacking the prey. The present finest solution is prey which is nearer to optimum solution. Remaining hyenas renew their location once that finest solution is determined.
Mathematically, spotted hyenas encircling behavior is formulated using below equations
where \(\vec{d}_{h}\) = the gap among prey and hyena. \(\vec{y}\) and \(\vec{z}\) = coefficient vectors. s = the present iteration. \(\vec{Q}_{q}\) = the vector spot of prey. \(\vec{Q}\) = the vector spot of hyena. \(\vec{y}\) and \(\vec{z}\) are compared as follows:
where Itr = 1, 2, 3, …, Maxitr.
Here, \(\vec{H}\) from 5 to 0 linearly decreases during iteration process, and maintains steadiness between exploration and exploitation. The random vectors \(\vec{r}_{1}\), \(\vec{r}_{2}\) ranged [0, 1]. The \(\vec{y}\) and \(\vec{z}\) values are fine tuned, such that hyenas move to other area about the present position. Using Eqs. (11) and (12), hyenas renew their points randomly all over the prey.
To structure the hunting activities of spotted hyenas, we expect finest searching agent has awareness regarding prey position. Remaining search agents designs an array which is of devoted friends and renews the location for the finest search agent.
Mathematically hunting is formulated as
where \(\vec{Q}_{h}\) = first best position of spotted hyena. \(\vec{Q}_{k}\) = the location of remaining spotted hyenas.
N = the count of spotted hyenas can be worked out as
where vector \(\vec{M}\) ranges [0.5, 1]. Ns = the number of candidate solutions, related to the superlative optimum solution in search space. \(\vec{C}_{h}\) is group of N optimum solutions.
To explain the attacking stage, it is necessary to reduce the value of H. Thus, difference in \(\vec{z}\) is also reduced due to change in H value which diminished from 5 to 0 during iteration runs.
The mathematically attacking the prey (exploitation) is prearranged by
where \(\vec{Q}(s + 1)\) accumulates finest solution and further search agents renew their locations by the positions of finest searching agent. SHO permits their hyenas to renew their locations and attack the prey.
The searching behavior explains the exploration ability of an algorithm. SHO algorithm guarantees the ability of using \(\vec{z}\) with random values > 1 or < − 1.
\(\vec{y}\) takes the responsibility for more randomized behavior of SHO algorithm and avoids local optimal values.
Below Algorithm 2 depicts spotted hyena optimizer.
5 Proposed improved chimp optimizer (ICHIMP-SHO)
This work extends an enhanced version of hunting behavior of Improved Chimp optimizer by means of spotted hyena, as depicted in Fig. 3c. To experience this consequence, the driving and chasing Eqs. (1) and (2) of IChimp along with hunting behavior of spotted hyena in Eq. (17) are considered to modify into Eq. (21). The pseudo code for the suggested ICHIMP-SHO algorithm is discussed in Algorithm 3
The two-dimensional and three-dimensional views for the position of chimp from the respective prey are depicted in Fig. 3a, b, respectively.
The suggested ICHIMP-SHO variant is beneficial above few population-based meta-heuristic techniques mainly in three aspects as follows.
The first aspect refers in combining two conventional techniques to frame a simple new efficient simulation method which executes faster with complex mathematical operations when compared with other existing methods. The features of standard ICHIMP are injected to SHO technique as initial parameters to strengthen its power which excels in processing and endeavors to optimize these values to boost up the ability of ICHIMP to consider the optimal value of optimization issue. This process is done without involving complex operations.
The second aspect is the proposed new method succeeded in obtaining best results than the solution drawn by ICHIMP. The experimental result stands as proof in the result section displaying its performance in terms of numerically and experimentally. This makes difference between the suggested techniques with other techniques. Majorly, most of the techniques suffer to attain optimum solution with increasing number of iterations due to downside inability. The suggested method develops a vital and standard method to solve this issue which can be practiced by the other methods in optimization by considering the operating phases of this method.
The third aspect is the idea behind the ICHIMP-SHO method is to enhance the optimization strength of ICHIMP to attain the optimized values, but not the complexity of the algorithm. The suggested optimization technique is developed with incorporating SHO algorithm functionality to the ICHIMP. The above two mathematical models have independent structures for managing optimization. To combine them, the computational methods are utilized to transform the principles of one algorithm into the other algorithm. As such, in this research work, ICHIMP pattern is mapped into the SHO parameters and translating SHO attributes back to ICHIMP. Along with this procedure, new operators have been introduced to improve the sophistication of hybrid variants. To examine the proposed hybrid variant ICHIMP-SHO, 16 benchmark functions and 11 constrained engineering optimal issues are considered to verify with different types of parameter settings.
6 Standard benchmark functions
A cluster of unique benchmark functions [30, 105] is used to put the proposed ICHIMP-SHO optimization approach to the test. The standard benchmarks are categorized into uni-modal (UM), multi-modal (MM), and fixed dimensions (FD). Based on objective fitness, these standard benchmark functions are defined such as dimension, range limit, and optimum value (fmin). The mathematical formulations for UM, MM, and FD are displayed in Tables 2, 3, and 4, and their results are described in outcomes and discussion section. Thirty trial runs are used to test the performance of standard benchmark functions. Table 5 illustrates the proposed algorithm’s details of parameter setting.
The complete study is considered by 30 search agents, and maximum iterations of 500. The suggested ICHIMP-SHO was tested using the MATLAB R2016a software on an Intel corei3 processor laptop with a 7th generation CPU and 8GB RAM.
The aforementioned parametric settings are the ideal choice for testing the proposed optimizer for standard benchmarks and engineering design challenges.
7 Outcomes and discussion
In this research work, the introduced Improved Chimp-Spotted Hyena Optimizer algorithm is tested on three major classes of standard benchmark functions to verify the presentation of the developed ICHIMP-SHO technique. The exploitation and convergence rate of ICHIMP-SHO is tested by uni-modal benchmark functions which have a single minimum. As the name multi-modal replicates which have more than one minimum, hence, these functions are utilized to test for exploration and avoid local optimum. The design variables are obtained by the difference between multi-modal and fixed-dimension benchmark functions. The fixed-dimension benchmark functions will store these design variables, and maintain a chart of previous data of search space and compare with multi-modal benchmark functions.
For comprehensive comparison analysis, a record of results of the developed ICHIMP-SHO algorithm was framed which were tabulated in the criteria of mean value, standard deviation, median value, the best value, worst value, and parametric tests by performing with 500 iterations and maximum runs of 30.
7.1 Evaluation of (F1–F7) functions (exploitation)
The test results for uni-modal (F1–F7) benchmark functions of suggested technique are illustrated in Tables 6, 7. The mean value and standard deviation were considered for evaluation of the test results with few newly developed meta-heuristic algorithms named LSA [62], BRO [133], OEGWO [134], PSA [59], HHO-PS [74], SHO [70], HHO [100], ECSA [135], and TSO [136], and are presented in Table 8. Its characteristic curves, trial runs, and convergence comparative curves with other algorithms are depicted in Figs. 4, 5, 6.
7.2 Evaluation of (F8–F13) functions (exploration)
The multi-modal benchmark functions (F8–F13) show the design variables in the desired number in the exploration phase. The test results are tabulated in Tables 9, 10. As well, the comparison of results was done considering mean value and standard deviation with other algorithms, such as LSA [55], BRO [106], OEGWO [107], PSA [40], hHHO-PS [67], SHO [63], HHO [51], ECSA [108], and TSO [109], and is recorded in Table 11. Also, its characteristics curves, trial runs, and convergence comparative curves with other algorithms are depicted in Figs. 7, 8, 9.
7.3 Evaluation of (F14–F23) functions
The fixed-dimensional benchmark (F14–F23) functions do not manipulate the design variables, but prepare the previous search space record of multi-modal benchmark functions. Tables 12, 13 show the test results of proposed algorithm and Table 14 showcases the comparative analysis of mean value and standard deviation with LSA [55], ECSA [108], TSO [109], PSA [40], hHHO-PS [67], SHO [63], and HHO [51]. Figures 10, 11, 12 show characteristics curves, trial runs, and convergence comparative curves with other algorithms
.
Hence, the test results for UM, MM, and FD benchmarks problems are tabulated in Tables 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and the assessment of the proposed optimizer with other meta-heuristics search algorithms for UM, MM, and FD benchmark problems is given in Figs. 5, 8 and 11 and trial run solutions for UM, MM, and FD benchmarks problems are shown in Figs. 6, 9, and 12. The above result clearly shows that the proposed optimizer presents much better than other algorithms. In subsequent sections, the proposed optimizers have been applied to 11 engineering optimization problems.
8 Engineering-based optimization design problems
To validate the efficacy of the suggested ICHIMP-SHO algorithm, 11 types of engineering-based optimization designs are considered: pressure vessel, Speed reducer problem, Three-bar truss problem, welded beam, gear train design problem, belleville spring problem, cantilever beam design, rolling element bearing, (discrete variables), I-beam design, Multi-disk clutch break, and Tension/compression spring design problem. The results for engineering-based optimization design issues were examined using several meta-heuristic optimizers, and convergence curves were compared to the standard CHIMP method, as shown in Fig. 24. Table 15 describes the engineering-based optimization design problems; Table 16 presents best values (Best fit), the average value (Ave), median value (Median), standard deviation (SD), and worst value (Worst fit); Table 17 shows Wilcoxon P value and t test values and the computation time of engineering-based optimization design problems is shown in Table 18.
8.1 Pressure vessel design
One of the multidisciplinary engineering optimization problems is depicted in Fig. 13, which is named Pressure Vessel design problem [137, 138]. The important aspect of this issue in engineering optimization design is to minimize or decrease the overall price, which includes material quality, welding, and the vessel's cylindrical form, as illustrated in Fig. 13. While, there are four types of factors utilized to create the pressure vessel issue (q1, q2, q3, and q4), such as shell thickness (Ts), head thickness (Th), internal radius ®, and cylindrical unit length (L) which are taken into account. This vessel has end caps on either sides, and the structure's head is hemispherical in form. The four types of constraints described above are the topic of a design problem, and the mathematical specification issue for the pressure vessel is represented in Eqs. (22)–(23d). Table 19 summarizes the conclusions of the analysis. The following are the results of ICHIMP-SHO compared with various algorithms.
We consider
To minimize
Here
Variable range, \(0 \le q_{1} \le 99\)
8.2 Speed reducer
As illustrated in Fig. 14 [110], this type of design issue has seven variables. It is made up of the face width × 1, the teeth module × 2, the pinion teeth number × 3, the first shaft length bearings × 4, the second shaft length bearings × 5, the 1st shaft diameter × 6, and the 2nd shaft diameter × 7. The weight of the velocity reducer must be reduced first which is the main aim of this issue. Figure 14 depicts the engineering design of a speed reducer. Table 20 summarizes the results of the analysis. GSA [61], hHHO-SCA [68], PSO [18], OBSCA, MFO [122], SCA, HS [31], and GA [10] are compared to the analytical findings of ICHIMP-SHO. Equations (24)–(24k) show the mathematical framework of the pressure vessel optimization design issue. The following is how the equations are written
.
Minimizing
Subjected to
Here
8.3 Three-bar truss engineering design problem
To test the suggested ICHIMP-SHO algorithm output, this engineering design is considered which is figured in Fig. 15. The idea is to reduce the fitness value of the weight. It is imbibed with three constraints, namely, deflection constraint, buckling constraint, and stress constraint. Equations (25–26c) expose the three-bar truss problem numerically and its comparison results are tabulated in Table 21
.
Variable range \(0 \le x_{1} ,x_{2} \le 1\).
Here, l = 100 cm, P = 2KN/cm2, and σ = 2KN/cm2.
8.4 Welded beam
In Fig. 16 [110, 111], this problem is depicted. The main focus is on lowering the welded beam's manufacturing costs: (i) bar height (h), (ii) weld thickness (h), (iii) bar length (l), and (iv) bar thickness (b) are the four variables which are all constrained by things like Buckling bar (Pc), End beam deflection (d), Side restrictions and shear stress (s), and Bending beam stress (h). The welded beam optimization design equations are presented in Eqs. (27)–(29f). In Table 22, the results of ICHIMP-SHO are compared to those of hHHO-SCA [68] and other algorithms.
Let us consider
By addressing
Range of variables: \(0.1 \le z_{1} \le 2,0.1 \le z_{2} \le 10,0.1 \le z_{3} \le 10,0.1 \le z_{4} \le 2.\)
Here
8.5 Gear train design
Another form of engineering-based design optimization issue is the Gear Train Design problem, which includes four parameter categories, as shown in Fig. 17 [110]. The general objective of the architectural design is to minimize the scalar value of the gears and the teeth ratio. As a result, the teeth of each gear are considered in the decision variable. For the comparative study of ICHIMP-SHO, the analytical data are given in Table 23. The model for the relevant formulae is as follows:
Let us consider
To minimize
subjected to
8.6 Belleville spring
This issue is depicted in Fig. 18. This is a technique used to reduce the problem by selecting a parameter that exists already in the constraints to the designed variable ratios. Belleville spring is designed with minimum weight in such a way to suit many designed variables, such as spring height (SH), external part diameter (DIME), internal part diameter (DIMI), and Belleville spring (ST) thickness. Table 24 presents the comparison results. The constraints when subjected will be affected in deflection, deflection height, the internal and external portion of diameter, compressive types of stresses, and slope. The below equations are the mathematical expressions
where
PMAX = 5400 lb.
P = 30e6 psi, \(\lambda_{\max }\) = 0.2 in, \(\delta\) = 0.3, G = 200 Kpsi,
H = 2 in, DIMMAX = 12.01 in, \(J = \frac{{{\text{DIM}}_{E} }}{{{\text{DIM}}_{I} }}\), \(\lambda_{1} = f(a)a,a = \frac{{S_{H} }}{t}\).
8.7 Cantilever beam design
As shown in Fig. 19, the goal of this civil-based engineering problem is to reduce beam weight. This is made up of five different sorts of shapes [111]. The final goal is to minimize the weight of the beam, as illustrated in Fig. 19. It is also granted upon by any single variable, and the entire design configuration comprises structural characteristics of five types, with the beam thickness being kept constant. To avoid infringing on Eqs. (33)–(34) for the design of the final optimum solution, the location of the vertical constraint should be calculated throughout the design procedure confront. Table 25 compares the results to those of other techniques. ICHIMP-SHO observations fared better than other algorithms. The following is the design formula:
Let us consider \(\vec{L} = [L_{1} L_{2} L_{3} L_{4} ]\)
By addressing
Ranges of variables are \(0.01 \le L_{1} ,L_{2} ,L_{3} ,L_{4} ,L_{5} \le 100\).
8.8 Rolling element bearing
The main aim of this design issue is to improve the rolling part's dynamic bearing ability, as shown in Fig. 20 [110, 147]. This problem in engineering design has ten choice variable numbers: (i) pitch diameter (DIMP), (ii) ball diameter (DIMB), (iii) ball numbers (Nb), (iv) outer raceway curvature coefficient, and (v) inner raceway curvature coefficient. The following five variables (KDmin, KDmax, ℇ, e, and f), which are only evaluated for discrete integers, have an impact on the interior section of the geometry. On kinematic circumstances and specifications, a total of nine nonlinear restrictions are challenged. Table 26 compares the results of ICHIMP-SHO with other known methods for the rolling bearing design problem. From Eqs. (35a) through (35c), the mathematical formulation for the tendered engineering design is shown.
For maximizing
If \({\text{DIM}} \le 25.4\;{\text{mm}}\)
If \({\text{DIM}} \ge 25.4\;{\text{mm}}\).
Addressing
Here
\(0.515 \le f_{I}\) and \(f_{0} \le 0.6\)
8.9 I-beam design
By altering the four parameters of the vertical I-beam, this engineering issue attempts to minimize vertical I-beam deviation. The four parameters b, h, tw, tf are shown in Fig. 21. In [150], it is stated that to obtain the dimensions of the beam shown in the figure, it has to satisfy geometric and strength constraints to optimize with the criteria: (1) cross-section of beam reduces its volume for given length; (2) static deflection to be noted when the beam is displaced on applying force. The mathematical formulations are given in Eqs. (37–39). Table 27 compares the analytical findings of ICHIMP-SHO with those of other well-known techniques.
Consider
\({\text{variable range}}\;10 \le x_{1} \le 50,10 \le x_{2} \le 80,0.9 \le x_{3} \le 5,0.9 \le x_{4} \le 5.\)
8.10 Tension/compression spring design problem
This is a component of the mechanical engineering problem [110, 111], and is one of the engineering designs constraints shown in Fig. 22. The proposal's main characteristic is that it reduces the spring weight. To solve the Spring Model Tension/Compression problem, three types of variable designs are needed: wire diameter (dwr), mean coil diameter (Dc), and active coil number (N). The amount of the surge, the minimal variance, and the limitations centered on the shear stress all play a role in the design. Equations (40)–(41d) show the numerical equations for the suggested engineering optimization design issue. The results of ICHIMP-SHO are compared to those of other techniques, as shown in Table 28.
Let us consider
But to minimize
Ranges of variables are \(0.005 \le S_{1} \le 2.00,0.25 \le S_{2} \le 1.3,2.00 \le S_{3} \le 1\).
8.11 Multi-disk clutch break (discrete variables)
The multi-disk clutch brake design challenge [179] is one of the most critical technical difficulties highlighted in Fig. 23. The technique of optimization’s main purpose is to reduce or increase weight; however, it is made up of five discrete variables: friction surface number (Sfn), disk thickness (Th), outer surface radius (Osr), actuating force form (Fac), and inner surface radius (Isr). From Eqs. (42)–(43g), the mathematical formulas for this design are shown. Table 29 compares the findings of ICHIMP-SHO with those of other techniques.
Mathematical formulas for optimization design are provided below as follows:
where,
subjected to
Here,
\(PM_{\pi } = \frac{{F_{ac} }}{{\Pi \left( {D_{0}^{2} - D_{in}^{2} } \right)}}\)
9 Conclusion
In the proposed research, two hybrid variants of chimp optimizers have been successfully developed and named as Imp-Chimp and Imp-Chimp-SHO, which are based on a wholesome attitude roused by amazing thinking and hunting ability with a sensual movement for finding the optimal solution in the global search region. The newly developed improved variant of Chimp optimizer has been successfully tested for various engineering design and standard benchmark optimization problems, which includes uni-modal, multi-modal, and fixed dimensions benchmark problems. After validating the efficiency of the proposed optimizers for standard benchmarks and engineering design problems, it has been experimentally observed that both the variants are competitive for finding the solution within the global search space. Based on experimental results and comparative analysis with other methodologies, it has been recommended that the proposed hybrid variants can be universally accepted to solve any of the hard engineering design challenges in the global search space. However, while dealing with these two variants as compared to the standard ChoA, both the algorithms are slow with respect to computational complexity due to sequential hybridized nature of the algorithm (Fig. 24).
Furthermore, these hybrid variants can be applied to solve the single and multi-area economic load dispatch problem with renewable energy sources, charging and discharging of PEVs/BEVs, storage strategies, automatic generation, and monitoring functions of the realistic power system. Furthermore, the developed hybrid algorithm versions will aid various academics and upcoming analysts working on new population-based approaches, unique optimization strategies, and the development of hybrid optimization algorithms.
References
Abbassi R, Abbassi A, Heidari AA, Mirjalili S (2019) An efficient salp swarm-inspired algorithm for parameters identification of photovoltaic cell models. Energy Convers Manag 179(January):362–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.10.069
Faris H et al (2019) An intelligent system for spam detection and identification of the most relevant features based on evolutionary random weight networks. Inf Fus 48(August):67–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2018.08.002
&NA (2000) Rapid Communications. JAIDS J Acquir Immun Defic Syn 23(5):374. https://doi.org/10.1097/00126334-200004150-00002
Wu G (2016) Across neighborhood search for numerical optimization. Inf Sci (NY) 329(61563016):597–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2015.09.051
Wu G, Pedrycz W, Suganthan PN, Mallipeddi R (2015) A variable reduction strategy for evolutionary algorithms handling equality constraints. Appl Soft Comput J 37:774–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.09.007
Khishe M, Mosavi MR (2020) Chimp optimization algorithm. Expert Syst Appl 149:113338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113338
Saremi S, Mirjalili S, Lewis A (2014) Biogeography-based optimisation with chaos. Neural Comput Appl 25(5):1077–1097. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-014-1597-x
Karaboga D, Basturk B (2007) A powerful and efficient algorithm for numerical function optimization: artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm. J Glob Optim 39(3):459–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10898-007-9149-x
Storn R, Price K (1997) Differential evolution—a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J Glob Optim. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008202821328
Elsayed SM, Sarker RA, Essam DL (2014) A new genetic algorithm for solving optimization problems. Eng Appl Artif Intell 27:57–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2013.09.013
Gandomi AH, Yang XS, Alavi AH (2013) Erratum: Cuckoo search algorithm: a metaheuristic approach to solve structural optimization problems (Engineering with Computers DOI: 10.1007/s00366-011-0241-y). Eng Comput 29(2):245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-012-0308-4
Das S, Biswas A, Dasgupta S, Abraham A (2009) Bacterial foraging optimization algorithm: theoretical foundations, analysis, and applications. Stud Comput Intell 203:23–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01085-9_2
Y. Xin-She (2012) Flower pollination algorithm for global optimization. In: Unconventional computation and natural computation, Springer, pp 240–49
Lam AYS, Li VOK (2012) Chemical reaction optimization: a tutorial. Memet Comput 4(1):3–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12293-012-0075-1
Yang XS (2010) Firefly algorithm, stochastic test functions and design optimization. Int J Bio Inspired Comput 2(2):78–84. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIC.2010.032124
Zong-Yuan M (2002) “5 1063 1” pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1006/rwgn.2001.0729
Rao RV, Savsani VJ, Balic J (2012) Teaching-learning-based optimization algorithm for unconstrained and constrained real-parameter optimization problems. Eng Optim 44(12):1447–1462. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215X.2011.652103
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 Part C J Mech Eng Sci 224(2):389–400. https://doi.org/10.1243/09544062JMES1732
Mirjalili S, Mirjalili SM, Lewis A (2014) Grey Wolf Optimizer, vol. 69. Elsevier Ltd.
Cuevas E, Cienfuegos M (2014) A new algorithm inspired in the behavior of the social-spider for constrained optimization. Expert Syst Appl 41(2):412–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.07.067
Yadav A, Deep K (2013) Constrained optimization using gravitational search algorithm. Natl Acad Sci Lett 36(5):527–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40009-013-0165-8
Gandomi AH, Yang XS, Alavi AH, Talatahari S (2013) Bat algorithm for constrained optimization tasks. Neural Comput Appl 22(6):1239–1255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-012-1028-9
Whitley D (2001) An overview of evolutionary algorithms: practical issues and common pitfalls. Inf Softw Technol 43(14):817–831. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-5849(01)00188-4
Calvet L, De Armas J, Masip D, Juan AA (2017) Learnheuristics: hybridizing metaheuristics with machine learning for optimization with dynamic inputs. Open Math 15(1):261–280. https://doi.org/10.1515/math-2017-0029
Heidari AA, Mirjalili S, Faris H, Aljarah I, Mafarja M, Chen H (2019) Harris hawks optimization: algorithm and applications. Fut Gen Comput Syst. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.02.028
Rao RV, Savsani VJ, Vakharia DP (2012) Teaching-learning-based optimization: an optimization method for continuous non-linear large scale problems. Inf Sci (NY) 183(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2011.08.006
Hansen P, Mladenović N, Moreno Pérez JA (2010) Variable neighbourhood search: methods and applications. Ann Oper Res 175(1):367–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-009-0657-6
Doʇan B, Ölmez T (2015) A new metaheuristic for numerical function optimization: vortex Search algorithm. Inf Sci (NY) 293(August):125–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.08.053
Takeang C, Aurasopon A (2019) Multiple of hybrid lambda iteration and simulated annealing algorithm to solve economic dispatch problem with ramp rate limit and prohibited operating zones. J Electr Eng Technol 14(1):111–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42835-018-00001-z
Yalcinoz T, Altun H, Uzam M (2001) Economic dispatch solution using a genetic algorithm based on arithmetic crossover. 2001 IEEE Porto Power Tech Proc 2(4):153–156. https://doi.org/10.1109/PTC.2001.964734
Naama B, Bouzeboudja H, Allali A (2013) Solving the economic dispatch problem by using Tabu Search algorithm. Energy Procedia 36:694–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.07.080
Nguyen TT, Vo DN (2015) The application of one rank cuckoo search algorithm for solving economic load dispatch problems. Appl Soft Comput J 37:763–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.09.010
Swain RK, Sahu NC, Hota PK (2012) Gravitational search algorithm for optimal economic dispatch. Procedia Technol 6:411–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2012.10.049
Yao X, Liu Y, Lin G (1999) Evolutionary programming made faster y 1 introduction. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 3(July):82–102
Geem ZW, Kim JH, Loganathan GV (2001) A new heuristic optimization algorithm: harmony search. Simulation 76(2):60–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/003754970107600201
Ghaemi M, Feizi-Derakhshi MR (2014) Forest optimization algorithm, vol. 41. Elsevier Ltd
Mirjalili S (2015) Moth-flame optimization algorithm: a novel nature−inspired heuristic paradigm. Knowl-Based Syst 89:228–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2015.07.006
Salimi H (2015) Stochastic fractal search: a powerful metaheuristic algorithm, vol 75. Elsevier B.V.
Xu J, Zhang J (2014) Exploration-exploitation tradeoffs in metaheuristics: Survey and analysis. In: Proc. 33rd Chinese Control Conf. CCC 2014, pp. 8633–8638. https://doi.org/10.1109/ChiCC.2014.6896450.
Yang XS, Deb S, Fong S (2014) Metaheuristic algorithms: optimal balance of intensification and diversification. Appl Math Inf Sci 8(3):977–983. https://doi.org/10.12785/amis/080306
Nematollahi AF, Rahiminejad A, Vahidi B (2017) A novel physical based meta-heuristic optimization method known as lightning attachment procedure optimization. Appl Soft Comput J 59:596–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.06.033
Rechenberg I (1989) Evolution strategy: nature’s way of optimization, pp 106–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-83814-9_6
Biswas A, Mishra KK, Tiwari S, Misra AK (2013) Physics-inspired optimization algorithms: a survey. J Optim 2013:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/438152
Formato RA, Engineers E (2014) Central force optimization algorithm. Intell Syst Ref Libr 62(November):333–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03404-1_19
Kaveh A, Talatahari S (2010) A novel heuristic optimization method: charged system search. Acta Mech 213(3–4):267–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00707-009-0270-4
Ali MM, Golalikhani M (2010) An electromagnetism-like method for nonlinearly constrained global optimization. Comput Math Appl 60(8):2279–2285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2010.08.018
Erol OK, Eksin I (2006) A new optimization method: big bang-big crunch. Adv Eng Softw 37(2):106–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2005.04.005
Mirjalili S, Lewis A (2014) Adaptive gbest-guided gravitational search algorithm. Neural Comput Appl 25(7–8):1569–1584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-014-1640-y
Hongye L, Atashpaz-Gargari E, Lucas C (2007) Imperialistic competitive algorithm ICA IEEE CEC 2007 inspired by imperialistic competition
Kumar M, Kulkarni AJ, Satapathy SC (2018) Socio evolution and learning optimization algorithm: a socio-inspired optimization methodology. Fut Gen Comput Syst 81:252–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2017.10.052
Ruiz-Vanoye JA, Díaz-Parra O, Cocón F, Soto A (2021) Meta-heuristics algorithms based on the grouping of animals by social behavior for the traveling salesman problem. Int J Comb Optim Prob Inform
Faris H, Aljarah I, Mirjalili S (2018) Improved monarch butterfly optimization for unconstrained global search and neural network training. Appl Intell 48(2):445–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-017-0967-3
Gandomi AH, Alavi AH (2012) Krill herd: a new bio-inspired optimization algorithm. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 17(12):4831–4845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2012.05.010
Mirjalili SZ, Mirjalili S, Saremi S, Faris H, Aljarah I (2018) Grasshopper optimization algorithm for multi-objective optimization problems. Appl Intell 48(4):805–820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-017-1019-8
Rizk-Allah RM, Hassanien AE, Elhoseny M, Gunasekaran M (2019) A new binary salp swarm algorithm: development and application for optimization tasks. Neural Comput Appl 31(5):1641–1663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-018-3613-z
Khishe M, Safari A (2019) Classification of sonar targets using an mlp neural network trained by dragonfly algorithm. Wirel Pers Commun 108(4):2241–2260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-019-06520-w
Khishe M, Mosavi MR (2019) Improved whale trainer for sonar datasets classification using neural network. Appl Acoust 154:176–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2019.05.006
Hashim FA, Houssein EH, Mabrouk MS, Al-atabany W (2019) Henry gas solubility optimization: a novel physics-based algorithm. Fut Gen Comput Syst 101:646–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.07.015
Liu Y, Li R (2020) PSA: a photon search algorithm 16(2): 478–493
Wang GG, Guo L, Gandomi AH, Hao GS, Wang H (2014) Chaotic Krill Herd algorithm. Inf Sci (NY) 274(January):17–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.02.123
Meng XB, Gao XZ, Lu L, Liu Y, Zhang H (2016) A new bio-inspired optimisation algorithm: bird Swarm Algorithm. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 28(4):673–687. https://doi.org/10.1080/0952813X.2015.1042530
Shareef H, Ibrahim AA, Mutlag AH (2015) Lightning search algorithm. Appl Soft Comput J 36:315–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.07.028
Mirjalili S, Mirjalili SM, Hatamlou A (2016) Multi-verse optimizer: a nature-inspired algorithm for global optimization. Neural Comput Appl 27(2):495–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-015-1870-7
Li MD, Zhao H, Weng XW, Han T (2016) A novel nature-inspired algorithm for optimization: virus colony search. Adv Eng Softw 92:65–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2015.11.004
Saremi S, Mirjalili S, Lewis A (2017) Grasshopper optimisation algorithm: theory and application. Adv Eng Softw 105:30–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2017.01.004
Deb S, Gao XZ, Tammi K, Kalita K, Mahanta P (2020) Recent studies on chicken swarm optimization algorithm: a review (2014–2018). Artif Intell Rev 53(3):1737–1765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-019-09718-3
Singh N, Singh SB (2017) A novel hybrid GWO-SCA approach for optimization problems. Eng Sci Technol Int J 20(6):1586–1601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2017.11.001
Huang KW, Wu ZX (2018) CPO: a crow particle optimization algorithm. Int J Comput Intell Syst 12(1):426–435. https://doi.org/10.2991/ijcis.2018.125905658
Aala Kalananda VKR, Komanapalli VLN (2021) A combinatorial social group whale optimization algorithm for numerical and engineering optimization problems. Appl Soft Comput 99:106903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106903
Dhiman G, Kumar V (2017) Spotted hyena optimizer: a novel bio-inspired based metaheuristic technique for engineering applications. Adv Eng Softw 114:48–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2017.05.014
Dhiman G, Kumar V (2018) Multi-objective spotted hyena optimizer: a Multi-objective optimization algorithm for engineering problems. Knowl Based Syst 150(March):175–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.03.011
Hu K, Jiang H, Ji CG, Pan Z (2020) A modified butterfly optimization algorithm: an adaptive algorithm for global optimization and the support vector machine. Expert Syst. https://doi.org/10.1111/exsy.12642
Kumar V, Kaur A (2020) Binary spotted hyena optimizer and its application to feature selection. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 11(7):2625–2645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-019-01324-z
Krishna AB, Saxena S, Kamboj VK (2021) A novel statistical approach to numerical and multidisciplinary design optimization problems using pattern search inspired Harris hawks optimizer. Springer, London
Kamboj VK, Nandi A, Bhadoria A, Sehgal S (2020) An intensify Harris Hawks optimizer for numerical and engineering optimization problems. Appl Soft Comput J 89:106018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.106018
Zamani H, Nadimi-shahraki MH (2020) Enhancement of bernstain-search differential evolution algorithm to solve constrained engineering problems. Int J Comput Sci Eng 9(6):386–396
Meng Z, Li G, Wang X, Sait SM, Yıldız AR (2020) A comparative study of metaheuristic algorithms for reliability-based design optimization problems. Arch Comput Methods Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-020-09443-z
Abualigah L, Diabat A, Mirjalili S, Abd Elaziz M, Gandomi AH (2021) The arithmetic optimization algorithm. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 376:113609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2020.113609
Hashim FA, Hussain K, Houssein EH, Mabrouk MS, Al-Atabany W (2021) Archimedes optimization algorithm: a new metaheuristic algorithm for solving optimization problems. Appl Intell 51(3):1531–1551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-020-01893-z
Bala Krishna A, Saxena S, Kamboj VK (2021) hSMA-PS: a novel memetic approach for numerical and engineering design challenges, no. 0123456789. Springer, London
Abualigah L, Yousri D, Abd Elaziz M, Ewees AA, Al-qaness MAA, Gandomi AH (2021) Aquila optimizer: a novel meta-heuristic optimization algorithm. Comput Ind Eng 157:107250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107250
Xu Z et al (2021) Spiral motion mode embedded grasshopper optimization algorithm: design and analysis. IEEE Access 9:71104–71132. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2021.3077616
Neshat M et al (2021) Wind turbine power output prediction using a new hybrid neuro-evolutionary method. Energy 229:120617
Kaur A, Singh L, Dhillon JS (2021) Modified Krill Herd Algorithm for constrained economic load dispatch problem. J Ambient Energy Int. https://doi.org/10.1080/01430750.2021.1888798
Nandi A, Kamboj VK (2021) A meliorated Harris Hawks optimizer for combinatorial unit commitment problem with photovoltaic applications. J Electr Syst Inf Technol. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43067-020-00026-3
Yang Y, Chen H, Heidari AA, Gandomi AH (2021) Hunger games search: visions, conception, implementation, deep analysis, perspectives, and towards performance shifts. Expert Syst Appl 177:114864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.114864
Osaba E, Yang X-S (2021) Soccer-inspired metaheuristics: systematic review of recent research and applications. Appl Optim Swarm Intell. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0662-5_5
Barshandeh S, Piri F, Sangani SR (2020) HMPA: an innovative hybrid multi-population algorithm based on artificial ecosystem-based and Harris Hawks optimization algorithms for engineering problems. Springer, London
Li S, Chen H, Wang M, Heidari AA, Mirjalili S (2020) Slime mould algorithm: a new method for stochastic optimization. Fut Gen Comput Syst 111:300–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2020.03.055
Faramarzi A, Heidarinejad M, Mirjalili S, Gandomi AH (2020) Marine predators algorithm: a nature-inspired metaheuristic. Expert Syst Appl 152:113377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113377
Abdel-Basset M, Chang V, Mohamed R (2020) HSMA_WOA: a hybrid novel Slime mould algorithm with whale optimization algorithm for tackling the image segmentation problem of chest X-ray images. Appl Soft Comput J 95:106642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106642
Chen Z, Liu W (2020) An efficient parameter adaptive support vector regression using K-Means clustering and chaotic slime mould algorithm. IEEE Access 8:156851–156862. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3018866
Premkumar M, Jangir P, Sowmya R, Alhelou HH, Heidari AA, Chen H (2021) MOSMA: multi-objective slime mould algorithm based on elitist non-dominated sorting. IEEE Access 9:3229–3248. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3047936
Zhao J, Gao ZM (2020) The chaotic slime mould algorithm with chebyshev map. J Phys Conf Ser. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1631/1/012071
Majhi SK, Mishra A, Pradhan R (2019) A chaotic salp swarm algorithm based on quadratic integrate and fire neural model for function optimization. Prog Artif Intell 8(3):343–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13748-019-00184-0
Li Y, Han M, Guo Q (2020) Modified whale optimization algorithm based on tent chaotic mapping and its application in structural optimization. KSCE J Civ Eng 24(12):3703–3713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-020-0504-5
Ji Y et al (2020) An adaptive chaotic sine cosine algorithm for constrained and unconstrained optimization. Complexity. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6084917
Paul C, Roy PK, Mukherjee V (2020) Chaotic whale optimization algorithm for optimal solution of combined heat and power economic dispatch problem incorporating wind, vol 35. Elsevier Ltd
Dhiman G, Kaur A (2019) A hybrid algorithm based on particle swarm and spotted hyena optimizer for global optimization, vol 816. Springer, Singapore
Heidari AA, Mirjalili S, Faris H, Aljarah I, Mafarja M, Chen H (2019) Harris hawks optimization: algorithm and applications. Fut Gen Comput Syst. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.02.028
Chen X, Tianfield H, Li K (2019) SC. Swarm Evol Comput BASE Data. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.swevo.2019.01.003
Shadravan S, Naji HR, Bardsiri VK (2019) The sailfish optimizer: a novel nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithm for solving constrained engineering optimization problems. Eng Appl Artif Intell 80:20–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.01.001
Verma C, Illes Z, Stoffova V (2019) Age group predictive models for the real time prediction of the university students using machine learning: preliminary results. In: Proc. 2019 3rd IEEE Int. Conf. Electr. Comput. Commun. Technol. ICECCT 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICECCT.2019.8869136
Mirjalili S (2015) Moth-flame optimization algorithm: a novel nature−inspired heuristic paradigm. Knowl Based Syst. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2015.07.006
Mirjalili S, Wang GG, dos Coelho LS (2014) Binary optimization using hybrid particle swarm optimization and gravitational search algorithm. Neural Comput Appl 25(6):1423–1435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-014-1629-6
Rashedi E, Nezamabadi-pour H, Saryazdi S (2009) GSA: a gravitational search algorithm. Inf Sci (NY) 179(13):2232–2248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2009.03.004
Simon D (2008) Biogeography-based optimization,
Yao Xin, Liu Yong, Lin G (1999) Evolutionary programming made faster. IEEE Trans Evol Computat. https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.771163
Glover F (1989) Tabu search—part I. Orsa J Comput 1(3):190–206
Hu T, Khishe M, Mohammadi M, Parvizi GR, Taher Karim SH, Rashid TA (2021) Real-time COVID-19 diagnosis from X-ray images using deep CNN and extreme learning machines stabilized by chimp optimization algorithm. Biomed Signal Process Control 68:102764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2021.102764
Zayed ME et al (2021) Predicting the performance of solar dish Stirling power plant using a hybrid random vector functional link/chimp optimization model. Sol Energy 222(March):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2021.03.087
Dhiman G (2021) SSC: A hybrid nature-inspired meta-heuristic optimization algorithm for engineering applications. Knowledge-Based Syst 222:106926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2021.106926
Kaur M, Kaur R, Singh N, Dhiman G (2021) SChoA: an newly fusion of sine and cosine with chimp optimization algorithm for HLS of datapaths in digital filters and engineering applications. Eng Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-020-01233-2
Wolpert DH, Macready WG (1997) No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 1(1):67–82. https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.585893
Rashedi E, Nezamabadi-Pour H, Saryazdi S (2010) BGSA: binary gravitational search algorithm. Nat Comput 9(3):727–745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11047-009-9175-3
Emary E, Zawbaa HM, Hassanien AE (2016) Binary grey wolf optimization approaches for feature selection. Neurocomputing 172:371–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2015.06.083
Nakamura RYM, Pereira LAM, Costa KA, Rodrigues D, Papa JP, Yang XS (2012) BBA: a binary bat algorithm for feature selection. Braz Symp Comput Graph Image Process. https://doi.org/10.1109/SIBGRAPI.2012.47
Nakamura RYM, Pereira LAM, Rodrigues D, Costa KAP, Papa JP, Yang XS (2013) Binary bat algorithm for feature selection. Swarm Intell Bio-Inspired Comput 2010:225–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-405163-8.00009-0
Kennedy J, Eberhart RC (1997) Discrete binary version of the particle swarm algorithm. Proc IEEE Int Conf Syst Man Cybern 5:4104–4108. https://doi.org/10.1109/icsmc.1997.637339
Dhiman G, Kaur A (2019) A hybrid algorithm based on particle swarm and spotted hyena optimizer for global optimization, vol 816. Springer, Singapore
Kaur S, Awasthi LK, Sangal AL (2021) HMOSHSSA: a hybrid meta-heuristic approach for solving constrained optimization problems, vol 37. Springer, London
Dhiman G (2020) MOSHEPO: a hybrid multi-objective approach to solve economic load dispatch and micro grid problems. Appl Intell 50(1):119–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-019-01522-4
Guo Z, Moayedi H, Foong LK, Bahiraei M (2020) Optimal modification of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system performances in residential buildings using the integration of metaheuristic optimization and neural computing. Energy Build 214:109866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.109866
Roth G, Dicke U (2005) Evolution of the brain and intelligence. Trends Cogn Sci 9(5):250–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.03.005
Khishe M, Mosavi MR (2020) Classification of underwater acoustical dataset using neural network trained by Chimp Optimization Algorithm. Appl Acoust 157:107005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2019.107005
Saffari A, Zahiri SH, Khishe M, Seyyed Mohammadreza Mosavi (2020) Design of a fuzzy model of control parameters of chimp algorithm optimization for automatic sonar targets recognition. Iran J Mar Technol. [Online]. Available at http://ijmt.iranjournals.ir/article_241126.html.
Jia H, Sun K, Zhang W, Leng X (2021) An enhanced chimp optimization algorithm for continuous optimization domains. Syst Complex Intell. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-021-00346-5
Wang J, Khishe M, Kaveh M, Mohammadi H (2021) Binary chimp optimization algorithm (BChOA): a new binary meta-heuristic for solving optimization problems. Cognit Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-021-09933-7
Kumari CL, Kamboj VK (2020) An effective solution to single-area dynamic dispatch using improved chimp optimizer. E3S Web Conf. 184: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202018401069.
Abdul Jabbar NM, Mitras BA (2021) Modified chimp optimization algorithm based on classical conjugate gradient methods. J Phys Conf Ser. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1963/1/012027
Houssein EH, Emam MM, Ali AA (2021) An efficient multilevel thresholding segmentation method for thermography breast cancer imaging based on improved chimp optimization algorithm. Expert Syst Appl 185(January):115651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115651
Sherif BV (2021) Detection and isolation of sel sh nodes in MANET using collaborative contact-based watchdog with.
Rahkar Farshi T (2020) Battle royale optimization algorithm. Neural Comput Appl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-020-05004-4
Hans R, Kaur H (2020) Opposition-based enhanced grey wolf optimization algorithm for feature selection in breast density classification. Int J Mach Learn Comput 10(3):458–464. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijmlc.2020.10.3.957
Bhullar AK, Kaur R, Sondhi S (2020) Enhanced crow search algorithm for AVR optimization, vol 24. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Qais MH, Hasanien HM, Alghuwainem S (2020) Transient search optimization: a new meta-heuristic optimization algorithm. Appl Intell 50(11):3926–3941. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-020-01727-y
Sadollah A, Bahreininejad A, Eskandar H, Hamdi M (2013) Mine blast algorithm: a new population based algorithm for solving constrained engineering optimization problems. Appl Soft Comput 13(5):2592–2612
Bhadoria A, Kamboj VK (2018) Optimal generation scheduling and dispatch of thermal generating units considering impact of wind penetration using hGWO-RES algorithm. Appl Intell. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-018-1325-9
LE−Duc T, Nguyen QH, Nguyen-Xuan H (2020) Balancing composite motion optimization. Inf Sci (NY) 520:250–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2020.02.013
Kaveh A, Talatahari S (2010) An improved ant colony optimization for constrained engineering design problems. Eng Comput (Swansea Wales). https://doi.org/10.1108/02644401011008577
Bernardino HS, Barbosa HJC, Lemonge ACC (2007) A hybrid genetic algorithm for constrained optimization problems in mechanical engineering. In: 2007 IEEE Congr. Evol. Comput. CEC 2007, no. September, pp. 646–653. https://doi.org/10.1109/CEC.2007.4424532
Wang L, Li LP (2010) An effective differential evolution with level comparison for constrained engineering design. Struct Multidiscip Optim 41(6):947–963. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-009-0454-5
Cagnina LC, Esquivel SC, Nacional U, Luis DS, Luis S, Coello CAC (2008) Solving engineering optimization problems with the simple constrained particle swarm optimizer 1 introduction 2 literature review 3 our proposed approach : SiC-PSO. Eng Optim 32:319–326
dos Coelho LS (2010) Gaussian quantum-behaved particle swarm optimization approaches for constrained engineering design problems. Expert Syst Appl 37(2):1676–1683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.06.044
Coello Coello CA, Montes EM (2002) Constraint-handling in genetic algorithms through the use of dominancE−based tournament selection. Adv Eng Inform 16(3):193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-0346(02)00011-3
Zhuo Huang F, Wang L, He Q (2007) An effective co-evolutionary differential evolution for constrained optimization. Appl Math Comput 186(1):340–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2006.07.105
Economics R (2010) Comprehensive learning particle swarm optimizer for constrained mixed-variable optimization problems 3(6): 832–842. Received : 07–05–2010 Accepted : 05–10–2010
Deb K, Goyal M (1996) A combined genetic adaptive search (GeneAS) for engineering design. Comput Sci Inform 26(1): 30–45 [Online]. Available: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.27.767%5Cnhttp://repository.ias.ac.in/82723/.
Victoire TAA, Jeyakumar AE (2004) Hybrid PSO–SQP for economic dispatch with valve-point effect. Electr Power Syst Res 71(1):51–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EPSR.2003.12.017
Ray T, Saini P (2001) Engineering design optimization using a swarm with an intelligent information sharing among individuals. Eng Optim 33(6):735–748. https://doi.org/10.1080/03052150108940941
Gandomi AH, Yun GJ, Yang XS, Talatahari S (2013) Chaos-enhanced accelerated particle swarm optimization. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 18(2):327–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2012.07.017
Bhadoria A, Marwaha S, Kamboj VK (2020) A solution to statistical and multidisciplinary design optimization problems using hGWO-SA algorithm. Neural Comput Appl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-020-05229-3
Zolghadr-Asli B, Bozorg-Haddad O, Chu X (2018) Crow search algorithm (CSA). In: Studies in Computational Intelligence
Zhang M, Luo W, Wang X (2008) Differential evolution with dynamic stochastic selection for constrained optimization. Inf Sci (NY) 178(15):3043–3074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2008.02.014
Kai Feng Z, Jing Niu W, Liu S (2021) Cooperation search algorithm: a novel metaheuristic evolutionary intelligence algorithm for numerical optimization and engineering optimization problems. Appl Soft Comput 98:106734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106734
Ray T, Liew KM (2003) Society and civilization: an optimization algorithm based on the simulation of social behavior. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 7(4):386–396. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2003.814902
Coello Coello CA (2000) Use of a self-adaptive penalty approach for engineering optimization problems. Comput Ind 41(2):113–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-3615(99)00046-9
Dimopoulos GG (2007) Mixed-variable engineering optimization based on evolutionary and social metaphors. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 196(4–6):803–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2006.06.010
He Q, Wang L (2007) An effective co-evolutionary particle swarm optimization for constrained engineering design problems. Eng Appl Artif Intell 20(1):89–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2006.03.003
Gandomi AH, Yang XS, Alavi AH (2011) Mixed variable structural optimization using Firefly Algorithm. Comput Struct 89(23–24):2325–2336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2011.08.002
Pelusi D, Mascella R, Tallini L, Nayak J, Naik B, Deng Y (2020) An improved moth-flame optimization algorithm with hybrid search phase. Knowl Based Syst. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2019.105277
Mirjalili S (2015) The ant lion optimizer, vol. 83. Elsevier Ltd.
Gandomi AH (2014) Interior search algorithm (ISA): a novel approach for global optimization. ISA Trans 53(4):1168–1183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2014.03.018
Sandgren E (1990) Nonlinear integer and discrete programming in mechanical design optimization. J Mech Des Trans ASME 112(2):223–229. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2912596
Kannan (1994) An augmented lagrange multiplier based method for mixed integer discrete continuous optimization and its applications to mechanical design. J Mech Design Mech Des 1(June 1994): 405–411
Fu JF, Fenton RG, Cleghorn WL (1991) A mixed integer-discrete-continuous programming method and its application to engineering design optimization. Eng Optim 17(4):263–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/03052159108941075
Zhang C, Wang HP (1993) Mixed-discrete nonlinear optimization with simulated annealing. Eng Optim 21(4):277–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/03052159308940980
Cao YJ, Wu QH (1997) Mechanical design optimization by mixed-variable evolutionary programming. In: Proc. IEEE Conf. Evol. Comput. ICEC, pp. 443–446
Litinetski VV, Abramzon BM (1998) Mars—a multistart adaptive random search method for global constrained optimization in engineering applications. Eng Optim 30(2):125–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/03052159808941241
Yun Y (2005) Study on adaptive hybrid genetic algorithm and its applications to engineering design problems study on adaptive hybrid genetic algorithm and its applications to engineering design problems
Chlckermane H, Gea HC (1996) Structural optimization using a new local approximation method. Int J Numer Methods Eng. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0207(19960315)39:5%3c829::aid-nme884%3e3.0.co;2-u
Gandomi AH, Yang X-S, Alavi AH (2013) Cuckoo search algorithm: a metaheuristic approach to solve structural optimization problems. Eng Comput 29(1):17–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-011-0241-y
Cheng MY, Prayogo D (2014) Symbiotic organisms search: a new metaheuristic optimization algorithm. Comput Struct 139:98–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2014.03.007
Eskandar H, Sadollah A, Bahreininejad A, Hamdi M (2012) Water cycle algorithm—a novel metaheuristic optimization method for solving constrained engineering optimization problems, vol. 110–111. Elsevier Ltd
Savsani P, Savsani V (2016) Passing vehicle search (PVS): a novel metaheuristic algorithm. Appl Math Model 40(5–6):3951–3978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2015.10.040
Chen H, Xu Y, Wang M, Zhao X (2019) A balanced whale optimization algorithm for constrained engineering design problems. Appl Math Model 71:45–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2019.02.004
Wang GG (2003) Adaptive response surface method using inherited Latin hypercube design points. J Mech Des Trans ASME 125(2):210–220. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1561044
Wang M, Heidari AA, Chen M, Chen H, Zhao X, Cai X (2020) Exploratory differential ant lion-based optimization. Expert Syst Appl. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113548
Abderazek H, Ferhat D, Ivana A (2016) Adaptive mixed differential evolution algorithm for bi-objective tooth profile spur gear optimization. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-9523-2
Wang Z, Luo Q, Zhou Y (2020) Hybrid metaheuristic algorithm using butterfly and flower pollination base on mutualism mechanism for global optimization problems, no. 0123456789. Springer, London
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Dr. M. Khishe and Dr. M. R. Mosavi for providing free access to MATLAB code of Chimp Optimizer algorithm. The corresponding author (Dr. Vikram Kumar Kamboj) wishes to thank Dr. O.P. Malik, Professor Emeritus, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, CANADA for his continuous support, guidance, encouragement and for providing advance research facilities for post-doctoral research at the University of Calgary, Alberta, CANADA. Further, Dr. Vikram Kumar Kamboj wishes to thank Mitacs Elevate for providing Financial Support for Post Doctoral Fellowship (PDF) Research activity at University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada and Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kumari, C.L., Kamboj, V.K., Bath, S.K. et al. A boosted chimp optimizer for numerical and engineering design optimization challenges. Engineering with Computers 39, 2463–2514 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-021-01591-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-021-01591-5