biomimetics

Article
Golf Optimization Algorithm: A New Game-Based
Metaheuristic Algorithm and Its Application to Energy
Commitment Problem Considering Resilience
Zeinab Montazeri 1 , Taher Niknam 1, *, Jamshid Aghaei 2 , Om Parkash Malik 3 , Mohammad Dehghani 1
and Gaurav Dhiman 4,5,6,7

1 Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Shiraz University of Technology,

Shiraz 7155713876, Iran; [Link]@[Link] (Z.M.); [Link]@[Link] (M.D.)
2 School of Engineering & Technology, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton 4701, Australia;
[Link]@[Link]
3 Department of Electrical and Software Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada;
maliko@[Link]
4 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Lebanese American University,
Byblos 13-5053, Lebanon; gdhiman0001@[Link]
5 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University Centre for Research and Development,
Chandigarh University, Mohali 140413, India
6 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Graphic Era Deemed to be University,
Dehradun 248002, India
7 Division of Research and Development, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara 144411, India
* Correspondence: niknam@[Link]; Tel.: +98-9171876173

Abstract: In this research article, we uphold the principles of the No Free Lunch theorem and employ
it as a driving force to introduce an innovative game-based metaheuristic technique named Golf
Optimization Algorithm (GOA). The GOA is meticulously structured with two distinctive phases,
namely, exploration and exploitation, drawing inspiration from the strategic dynamics and player
Citation: Montazeri, Z.; Niknam, T.; conduct observed in the sport of golf. Through comprehensive assessments encompassing fifty-two
Aghaei, J.; Malik, O.P.; Dehghani, M.; objective functions and four real-world engineering applications, the efficacy of the GOA is rigorously
Dhiman, G. Golf Optimization examined. The results of the optimization process reveal GOA’s exceptional proficiency in both
Algorithm: A New Game-Based exploration and exploitation strategies, effectively striking a harmonious equilibrium between the
Metaheuristic Algorithm and Its two. Comparative analyses against ten competing algorithms demonstrate a clear and statistically
Application to Energy Commitment significant superiority of the GOA across a spectrum of performance metrics. Furthermore, the
Problem Considering Resilience. successful application of the GOA to the intricate energy commitment problem, considering network
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386. [Link]
resilience, underscores its prowess in addressing complex engineering challenges. For the conve-
org/10.3390/biomimetics8050386
nience of the research community, we provide the MATLAB implementation codes for the proposed
Academic Editors: Yongquan Zhou GOA methodology, ensuring accessibility and facilitating further exploration.
and Huiling Chen
Keywords: energy; energy carriers; exploitation; exploration; game-based; golf; metaheuristic
Received: 27 June 2023
Revised: 14 August 2023
algorithm; optimization; real-world applications; resilience
Accepted: 22 August 2023
Published: 24 August 2023

1. Introduction
In tandem with the progressing frontiers of scientific and technological domains, an
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. imperative arises for the development of more refined optimization methodologies capa-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
ble of addressing the intricacies of novel as well as established optimization challenges.
This article is an open access article
Metaheuristic algorithms, constituting stochastic-driven methodologies, offer a recourse
distributed under the terms and
for attaining acceptable solutions to optimization quandaries through their inherent ca-
conditions of the Creative Commons
pacity for random exploration of the solution space. These algorithms leverage stochastic
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
operators and trial-and-error mechanisms to navigate the complex search domain [1]. How-
[Link]/licenses/by/
4.0/).
ever, it is important to note that the solutions yielded by metaheuristic algorithms do not

Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386. [Link] [Link]

Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 2 of 37

carry an absolute assurance of attaining the global optimum [2]. Such solutions are aptly
characterized as quasi-optimal solutions [3]. The underlying stochastic search process in
metaheuristic algorithms operates on two distinct strata: the global level, encompassing
exploration of the solution landscape, and the local level, which is centered around the
concept of exploitation within localized regions. The pivotal determinant for the efficacy
of metaheuristic algorithms in attaining viable solutions resides in the meticulous orches-
tration of a harmonious interplay between exploration and exploitation throughout the
optimization endeavor [4]. The optimization process within metaheuristic algorithms
follows an akin trajectory, commencing with the stochastic generation of a multitude of
potential solutions, subsequently refined through iterative algorithmic cycles and the sys-
tematic application of diverse algorithmic steps. Upon the culmination of this iterative
process, the most refined candidate solution is called the ultimate resolution to the given
problem [5].
In the pursuit of enhanced and more apt solutions, a multitude of metaheuristic algo-
rithms have been meticulously conceived and formulated by a diverse array of researchers.
These algorithms have found extensive utilization across a myriad of scientific domains,
encompassing realms such as energy systems [6,7], electrical engineering [8–10], predic-
tive modeling [11], and energy management strategies [12–14], thereby manifesting their
widespread applicability and utility.
In addition, with the evolution of technology and societal advancement, there has
been an augmented demand for diverse forms of energy carriers. These encompass a
spectrum of resources including oil, gas, coal, electricity, and renewable energy sources.
The proficient utilization of these energy carriers not only facilitates the fulfillment of
escalating energy requisites but also affords the opportunity for substantial operational
cost savings [15]. Concurrently, power networks have remained inherently susceptible
to an array of hazards, spanning from natural calamities to contemporary cyber threats.
Consequently, the evaluation of the power system’s resilience against these potential
disruptions assumes paramount importance. Resilience, in this context, denotes the capacity
of the system to sustain an acceptable performance level in the face of severe disturbances
and subsequently recover within a reasonable timeframe [16]. Optimal energy carrier
operation during a specified study period hinges upon a meticulous consideration of
energy consumption dynamics. The strategic utilization of energy carriers is meticulously
determined, with the overarching objective of establishing a usage pattern that not only
aligns with technical imperatives but also embodies the most economically judicious
approach [17]. As such, the core aspiration of optimizing energy carrier operations is
the identification of an optimal utilization pattern that prioritizes technical exigencies
while concurrently optimizing economic considerations. One of the primary aims of this
study revolves around the implementation of an energy commitment analysis within the
energy network. This analysis, executed through the lens of optimization algorithms, is
inherently attuned to resilience considerations, accentuating its significance within the
broader research objectives.
At the heart of this inquiry lies a fundamental research question: in light of the myriad
metaheuristic algorithms that have already been introduced, does the necessity persist for
the introduction of novel metaheuristic approaches? The answer to this question, which is
shaped by the tenets of the No Free Lunch (NFL) theorem [18], unfolds as follows: While a
given metaheuristic algorithm may exhibit optimal performance when applied to a specific
set of optimization problems, such success does not engender an unequivocal assurance of
efficacy across all conceivable optimization scenarios. The NFL theorem underscores the
absence of any presumptions, affirmative or negative, regarding an algorithm’s capacity to
conquer a given optimization challenge. Consequently, it remains untenable to assert the
supremacy of any singular metaheuristic algorithm as a universal optimizer for the entire
spectrum of optimization applications. This theorem serves as a catalyst, urging researchers
to continually forge ahead in their quest to devise superior solutions for optimization
predicaments, thereby spurring the development of innovative metaheuristic algorithms.
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 3 of 37

The innovation and novelty of this paper are in the introduction and design of a new
meta-heuristic algorithm called Golf Optimization Algorithm (GOA), which is used in the
handling of optimization problems. The originality of the proposed approach is confirmed
based on the best knowledge obtained from the literature review, where no metaheuristic
algorithm inspired by the game of golf has been designed so far. Therefore, in this study,
the Golf Optimization Algorithm (GOA) is designed and introduced for the first time in
order to deal with optimization applications. The main contributions of this study are as
follows:
• The fundamental inspiration of the GOA is to simulate the rules and behavior of
players in the game of golf.
• Different phases of the GOA implementation in two phases of exploration and ex-
ploitation have been mathematically modeled.
• The efficiency of the GOA in solving optimization problems has been evaluated on
fifty-two standard objective functions.
• The quality of the results obtained from GOA has been compared with ten well-known
metaheuristic algorithms.
• The ability of the GOA to address real-world applications is tested on four engineering
design problems and the optimization of operation of energy carriers’ problems with
respect to energy grid resilience.
The rest of the article is as follows: In Section 2, the literature review is provided. The
proposed GOA is introduced in Section 3. Simulation studies and results are presented
in Section 4. The effectiveness of the GOA in solving the problem of the operation of
energy carriers according to the resilience of the network is evaluated in Section 5. Finally,
conclusions and several suggestions for future studies are provided in Section 6.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Metaheuristic Algorithms
Metaheuristic algorithms have been developed based on inspiration from various
phenomena in nature, the natural behavior of living things, the laws of physics, biological
sciences, human interactions, the rules of games, and other evolutionary processes. Based
on the idea employed in the design, metaheuristic algorithms fall into nine groups: swarm-
based, biology-based, physics-based, social-based, sports-based, music-based, chemistry-
based, plant-based, and mathematics-based approaches. Also, based on the combination of
these algorithms, hybrid approaches have also been developed [19].
Swarm-based approaches have been developed based on simulations of swarming
activities of animals, birds, insects, aquatic animals, and other living organisms in nature.
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) [20], Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) [21], Artificial
Bee Colony (ABC) [22], and Firefly Algorithm (FA) [23] methods are among the most
familiar swarm-based approaches. Moving the flock of birds and fish in search of food is
the idea behind PSO. The ants’ attempt to identify the optimal path between the nest and
the food source is the idea behind ACO. The activities of colony bees to gain access to food
sources are the idea behind ABC. The behavior of fireflies and the flashing light pattern
they produce based on the bioluminescence phenomenon is the idea behind FA. Coati
Optimization Algorithm (COA) is developed based on simulating the strategy of coatis
when attacking iguanas and when escaping from their predators [24]. Green Anaconda
Optimization (GAO) is designed based on the mechanism of recognizing the position of
the female species by the male species during the mating season and the hunting strategy
of green anacondas [25]. Cat and Mouse-Based Optimizer (CMBO) is proposed based
on simulation of movement of cats towards mice as well as the escape of mice towards
havens [26]. Food search and hunting behavior have been the idea of designing different
algorithms, such as Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO) [27], Whale Optimization Algorithm
(WOA) [28], African Vultures Optimization Algorithm (AVOA) [29], Marine Predator
Algorithm (MPA) [30], Reptile Search Algorithm (RSA) [31], Tunicate Search Algorithm
(TSA) [32], Orca Predation Algorithm (OPA) [33], White Shark Optimizer (WSO) [34],
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 4 of 37

Pelican Optimization Algorithm (POA) [35], Serval Optimization Algorithm (SOA) [36],
and Red Fox Optimization (RFO) [37].
Biology-based methods have been introduced based on the modeling of biological
sciences and the concepts of natural selection. Genetic Algorithm (GA) [38] and Differential
Evolution (DE) [39] are the most famous evolutionary algorithms that are developed based
on modeling the reproductive process according to Darwin’s theory of evolution and the use
of random operators such as selection, crossover, and mutation. Some other evolutionary-
based algorithms are Evolutionary Programming (EP) [40], Genetic Programming (GP) [41],
and Artificial Immune System (AIS) [42].
Physics-based algorithms are designed based on simulations of phenomena, processes,
and laws of physics. Simulated Annealing (SA) [43] and Gravitational Search Algorithm
(GSA) [44] are two well-known physics-based approaches. SA is inspired by the process
of melting and cooling materials in metallurgy. In this physical process, the material is
heated and slowly cooled under controlled conditions to increase the size of the crystal in
the material and reduce its defects. GSA is inspired by the modeling of the gravitational
force between different masses and the application of Newton’s laws of motion. Physical
forces have been the source of inspiration in the design of algorithms such as Spring Search
Algorithm (SSA) [45,46], which is based on spring force and Hook’s law, and Momentum
Search Algorithm (MSA) [47], which is based on the simulation of the force resulting from
the impact of objects colliding with each other. The physical phenomenon of rime-ice is
employed in designing the RIME algorithm [48]. Some other physics-based algorithms
are Multi-Verse Optimizer (MVO) [49], Fick’s Law Algorithm (FLA) [50], Equilibrium
Optimizer (EO) [51], Kepler Optimization Algorithm (KOA) [52], Water Cycle Algorithm
(WCA) [53], and Henry Gas Solubility Optimization (HGSO) [54].
Social-based approaches have been developed by modeling human activities and inter-
actions in society. Interactions between students and the teacher in the classroom have been
the idea behind Teaching–Learning Based Optimization (TLBO) [55]. Mother Optimization
Algorithm (MOA) is introduced based on Eshrat’s care of her children in three phases
education, advice, and upbringing [56]. Following the community leader to raise the level
of development of that community has been the idea behind the Following Optimization
Algorithm (FOA) [57]. The collaboration of individuals in a group to present teamwork and
achieve team goals has been the idea behind Teamwork Optimization Algorithm (TOA) [58].
Learning different skills from instructors in schools has been the source of designing dif-
ferent algorithms, such as Driving Training-Based Optimization (DTBO) [59], Language
Education Optimization (LEO) [60], Sewing Training-Based Optimization (STBO) [61], and
Chef-Based Optimization Algorithm (CBOA) [62]. Some other human-based algorithms
are Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves (AFT) [63], War Strategy Optimization (WSO) [64], Skill
Optimization Algorithm (SOA) [65], Brain Storm Optimization (BSO) [66], and Poor and
Rich Optimization (PRO) algorithm [67].
Sports-based metaheuristic algorithms are introduced based on simulating the rules
and behavior of players in different individual or group games. Volleyball League simula-
tion has been the source of inspiration behind the Volleyball Premier League (VPL) [68] and
Football League simulation has been the source of inspiration behind the Football Game
Based Optimization (FGBO) [15]. The players’ attempt to put the puzzle pieces together
was the idea behind the Puzzle Optimization Algorithm (POA) [69]. The players’ effort to
place the game rings in the score bars has been the main idea in the design of Ring Toss
Game-Based Optimization (RTGBO) [70]. Some of the other game-based algorithms are
Billiard Optimization Algorithm (BOA) [71], League Championship Algorithm (LCA) [72],
Tug of War Optimization (TOA) [73], Running City Game Optimizer (RCGO) [74], and
Soccer League Optimization (SLO) [75].
Music-based metaheuristic algorithms are developed inspired by musical concepts.
Harmony Search (HS) [76], Melody Search (MS) [77], and Musical Composition Algo-
rithm (MCA) [78] are examples of music-based algorithms. Chemical Reaction Optimiza-
tion (CRO) [79] and Artificial Chemical Reaction Optimization Algorithm (ACROA) [80]
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 5 of 37

are chemistry-based metaheuristic algorithms that are designed based on the simula-
tion of chemical concepts. Plant-based metaheuristic algorithms are developed inspired
by plant intelligence [81]. Some of the plant-based algorithms are Flower Pollination
Algorithm (FPA) [82], Invasive Weed Optimization (IWO) [83], Paddy Field Algorithm
(PFA) [84], Root Mass Optimization Algorithm (RMOA) [85], and Rooted Tree Optimization
(RTO) [86]. Base Optimization Algorithm (BOA) [87], Subtraction–Average-Based Opti-
mizer (SABO) [88], Selecting Some Variables to Update-Based Algorithm (SSVUBA) [89], Av-
erage and Subtraction-Based Optimizer (ASBO) [90], and Sine–Cosine Algorithm (SCA) [91]
are examples of mathematics-based metaheuristic algorithms. Some other recently pro-
posed metaheuristic algorithms are Monarch Butterfly Optimization (MBO) [92], Slime
Mould Algorithm (SMA) [93], Moth Search Algorithm (MSA) [94], Hunger Games Search
(HGS) [95], Runge Kutta method (RUN) [96], Colony Predation Algorithm (CPA) [97],
weighted mean of vectors (INFO) [98], and Harris Hawks Optimization (HHO) [99].
Based on the best knowledge gained from the literature review, so far, golf game
modeling has not been used in any metaheuristic algorithm. To address this, in this paper,
a new metaheuristic algorithm based on golf simulation, which is described in the next
section, is designed to address the optimization applications.

2.2. Energy Commitment

The intricate interplay between energy supply and demand has perpetually captured
the attention of researchers, giving rise to a prolific body of scholarly investigations. A
seminal milestone in this domain materialized through Charpentier’s seminal work in 1974,
which constituted the inaugural comprehensive compilation of projects undertaken across
diverse nations [59]. Within this seminal study, energy models are broadly categorized into
two overarching classes: (1) single-fuel models, which encompass aspects such as energy
carrier demand, production, distribution, and sector-specific optimization, and (2) multi-
fuel models, which encompass the concurrent consideration of multiple energy carriers.
The concept of energy commitment, which is fundamental to this discourse, pertains to
the judicious operation of energy carriers. This entails, foremost, the fulfillment of energy
demands and, subsequently, the alignment with economic considerations [100].
Underpinning the energy supply framework are a constellation of interdependent
subsystems designed to furnish requisite energy to both economic and societal sectors.
Diverse primary energy carriers, coupled with an array of processing and energy conversion
technologies, collectively facilitate the realization of energy supply. The intricate flow of
distinct energy forms constitutes an integral subset of the broader energy supply system.
Notably, alterations in the flow of each energy carrier reverberate across the entirety of
the energy supply system, intricately influencing the dynamics of other energy carriers’
flows [101,102].
Unit commitment (UC) has always been considered one of the main issues of power
systems [103]. The main purpose and definition of UC is “to determine the most appropriate
pattern of on or off power plants, so that first the technical issues are observed and then
the most economical state”. Meeting the electrical energy demand with the least fuel
cost with the optimal combination of different power plants is an important criterion in
the UC problem [104]. Therefore, the basic constraint in the operation of power systems
(regardless of grid losses) is the balance of total energy production of power plants with
total electrical energy demand [105]. UC is a large-scale, nonlinear, and integer real-world
optimization application that is quite challenging to solve. Considerable attention has been
paid to optimization algorithms that solve UC over the past few decades. These techniques
include comprehensive counting, priority listing, dynamic programming, integer and linear
programming, Lagrange separation, fuzzy systems, artificial neural networks, taboo search,
simulated annealing, genetic algorithms, and other metaheuristic algorithms [104].
Within the fabric of our modern infrastructure, industrial, commercial, and residential
consumers are inextricably intertwined with a network of energy grids, encompassing
diverse mediums such as electricity, natural gas, and localized heating or cooling systems.
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 6 of 37

Notwithstanding the considerable scholarly focus on energy infrastructure, a noteworthy

research gap persists in the exploration of the synergistic interplay between these distinct
systems—a juncture that holds substantial untapped potential. This convergence offers
an array of advantages, prominently featuring the amalgamation of complementary and
adaptable attributes intrinsic to each system.
For instance, natural gas networks readily serve as cost-effective reservoirs, enabling
straightforward energy storage. Conversely, electricity grids possess the intrinsic capacity
to transmit energy over extensive distances, incurring relatively minimal losses. Therefore,
the integration of these networks, capitalizing on their respective merits, stands poised to
elevate system efficiency, bolster reliability, and optimize overall performance.
Numerous modeling paradigms have surfaced in the realm of multi-carrier energy
systems. While prior models, as delineated in references [106,107], serve as rudimentary
foundational constructs, they fall short of capturing the intricacies and flexibilities inherent
to energy production and consumption cycles. In contrast, a more comprehensive and
nuanced framework, expounded upon in [108], embraces the temporal and spatial interde-
pendencies intrinsic to multi-objective optimization, thereby orchestrating the planning,
design, and operation of multi-carrier energy systems.
A broader vista emerges within the realm of control-oriented modeling, as explored
in [109], which lends itself to a more holistic understanding of multi-carrier energy systems.
Integral to this orchestration are energy storage systems, which play an ancillary yet
pivotal role. A novel reservoir-based storage approach, as documented in [110], delves
into the assessment of storage performance and flexibility within the context of multi-
carrier systems. Complementing this, a comprehensive inquiry into the reliability facets of
multi-carrier energy systems is expounded upon in [110].
Within the overarching discourse, environmental considerations are not overlooked,
as evidenced by the meticulous exploration of their impact, as elucidated in [111]. Thus,
the research landscape continues to evolve, delving deeper into the intricate nexus of
multi-carrier energy systems, unveiling novel vistas and innovative paradigms.
Maintaining the security of infrastructure systems such as power grids against nat-
ural disasters that occur with low impact and, of course, high probability has long been
considered by the designers and operators of these systems. However, the operation of
these systems is severely disrupted by severe disturbances. Therefore, it is necessary that,
both in the design stage and in the operation stage of these systems, the behavior of the
system in the event of severe accidents be studied and the necessary planning to address the
shortcomings be considered. This behavior is known as a new feature called the resilience
of an infrastructure system. Resilience refers to the temporal performance of a system
including endurance, vulnerability, and reversibility in the event of a severe disturbance.
Therefore, the operation of the energy grid to meet energy demand with respect to grid
resilience is an optimization challenge that must be solved using effective techniques. In
the following sections, after designing the proposed optimization approach, the algorithm
will be implemented on this optimization challenge.

3. Golf Optimization Algorithm

In this section, Golf Optimization Algorithm (GOA) theory is described, and then its
mathematical modeling for use in optimization applications is presented.

3.1. Inspiration of GOA

Golf, an outdoor game or sport, unfolds on individual or team canvases, wielded by
the adept manipulation of specialized clubs. The foundational tenets of this pastime dictate
its essence—an artful journey of propelling a ball from its inaugural point towards a distant
hole. This pursuit, executed through calculated swings and governed by a set of stipula-
tions, encapsulates the essence of golf. Beneath this ostensibly straightforward surface,
however, the game’s regulations interpose complexities, engendering a heightened level of
challenge. Central to this enterprise is the strategic finesse required to guide the golf ball
 3.1. Inspiration of GOA
Golf, an outdoor game or sport, unfolds on individual or team canvases, wielded by
theofadept
3.1. Inspiration GOAmanipulation of specialized clubs. The foundational tenets of this pastime dic-
tate its essence—an artful journey of propelling a ball from its inaugural point towards a
Golf, an outdoor game or sport, unfolds on individual or team canvases, wielded by
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 distant hole. This pursuit, executed through calculated swings and governed by a 7set of
of 37
the adept manipulation of specialized clubs. The foundational tenets of this pastime dic-
stipulations, encapsulates the essence of golf. Beneath this ostensibly straightforward sur-
tate its essence—an artful journey of propelling a ball from its inaugural point towards a
face, however, the game’s regulations interpose complexities, engendering a heightened
distant hole. This pursuit, executed through calculated swings and governed by a set of
levelthe
into of awaiting
challenge. Central to this enterprise is the astrategic finesseofrequired to guide the
stipulations, encapsulates thehole.
essence Thisof strategic
golf. Beneath choreography, this ostensibly manifestation
straightforward intellectual
sur- prowess,
golf
serves ball into the awaiting hole. This strategic choreography, a manifestation of intellectual
face, however, theasgame’s
a wellspring of inspiration
regulations interpose forcomplexities,
the conceptualization engendering of a pioneering
a heightened metaheuristic
prowess,
algorithm. serves as
The inception a wellspring
of the Golf of inspiration
Optimization for the
Algorithm conceptualization
(GOA) derivesof a pioneering
level of challenge. Central to this enterprise is the strategic finesse required to guide theits blueprint
metaheuristic
from this very [Link].
strategy, The inception of the Golf Optimization Algorithm (GOA) derives
golf ball into the awaiting Thisseamlessly weaving its contours
strategic choreography, a manifestationinto a methodological
of intellectualframework.
its blueprint
In theasrealm from this
of the GOA, very strategy,
this strategic seamlessly
dance weaving
finds embodiment, its contours into a methodolog-
its intricate steps de-
prowess, serves a wellspring of inspiration for the conceptualization of a pioneering
ical framework.
lineated, and its In the realmunderpinnings
conceptual of the GOA, this strategic dance
crystallized through findsrigorous
embodiment, its intri-
mathematical
metaheuristic algorithm. The inception of the Golf Optimization Algorithm (GOA) derives
cate
[Link] delineated, and its conceptual underpinnings crystallized through rigorous
its blueprint from this very strategy, seamlessly weaving its contours into a methodolog-
mathematical modeling.
ical framework. In the realm of the GOA, this strategic dance finds embodiment, its intri-
3.2. Initialization of GOA
cate steps delineated, and its conceptual underpinnings crystallized through rigorous
3.2. Initialization of GOA
GOA is a population-based approach that can provide appropriate solutions to opti-
mathematical modeling.
mization GOAproblems through a random
is a population-based approach search that of its
canmembers in the problem-solving
provide appropriate solutions [Link]-
The position
mization
3.2. Initialization of GOA of
problemsthe GOAthroughmembers a random in the problem
search of search
its members space in determines
the the
problem-solvingvalues of the
space.
problem variables. The population of GOA members
The position of the GOA members in the problem search space determines the values of can be mathematically represented
GOA is a population-based approach that can provide appropriate solutions to opti-
using a matrixvariables.
the problem accordingThe to Equation
population (1).of Like GOA other membersmetaheuristic can bealgorithms,
mathematically population
repre-
mization problems through a random search of its members in the problem-solving space.
members
sented using are arandomly distributed
matrix according over the (1).
to Equation problemLike other spacemetaheuristic
using a uniform distribution.
algorithms, pop-
The position of the GOA members in the problem search space determines the values of
The position
ulation membersof theare GOA members
randomly at the beginning
distributed over the of problem
the implementation space usingofathe algorithm
uniform dis-
the problem variables. The population of GOA members can be mathematically repre-
is randomly
tribution. Theinitialized
positionin ofthethesearch
GOA space members using atEquation
the beginning (2). of the implementation of
sented using a matrix according to Equation (1). Like other metaheuristic algorithms, pop-
the algorithm is randomly initialized  in the search space using Equation (2).
ulation members are randomly distributed  
X1 over the
x1,1 problem · · · x1,d space· ·using · x1,m a uniform
 dis-
tribution. The position of the GOA .members𝑋 at the.𝑥 ,
beginning ⋯ 𝑥 . , of ⋯
the 𝑥 ,
implementation
. of
.
 . ⎡ ⋮ ⎤  ⎡. ⋮ . ⋱ .. ⎤
 .   . ..⋮
the algorithm is randomly initialized in⎢ the⎥ search⎢space using Equation (2).⎥
. ⋰ ⋮ 
𝑥 , · ·⋯ · x𝑥i,d, ·⋯ · · 𝑥x,i,m⎥
   
X= 𝑋X= i 𝑋 = =xi,1  , , (1)
(1)
 . ⎢⎢𝑥⋮ , ⎥⎥ ⋯ 𝑥⎢⎢. , ⋮ ⋯⋰ 𝑥 ,.⋮

𝑋 .⋱ ⋮ .
⎡ ⋮ ⎤  .  . ⎡ ⋮ ⋱  .𝑥⋮ . ⋰ ⋮. ⎤
. . . .
. ⎥
⎢ ⎥ X ⎢⎣𝑥 𝑋 ⎦ × ⎣ , ⋯ 𝑥 ,⎥ ⋯ 𝑥 , ⎦ ×
𝑋 = ⎢𝑋 ⎥ =N ⎢ N× , m ⋯ x 𝑥
N,1 , ·⋯ · · 𝑥
x , ⎥
N,d · · ,
· x N,m N ×m (1)
⎢ ⋮ ⎥ ⎢ ⋮ ⋰ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎥
⎣𝑋 ⎦ × ⎣𝑥X, 𝑋:𝑖 :x⋯𝑥𝑖,𝑑 = 𝑥 𝑙𝑏 + 𝑟 × (𝑢𝑏 − 𝑙𝑏𝑑 ),
, 𝑑 ⋯ 𝑥 , ⎦𝑑
(2)
i i,d = lbd + r × ( ubd −×lbd ), (2)
Here, 𝑋 is the population matrix of GOA, 𝑋 is the ith GOA member, 𝑥 , is the
Here, X dth
is the population = 𝑙𝑏matrix
𝑋𝑖 : 𝑥𝑖,𝑑 proposed ×of GOA, Xi),is the ith GOA 𝑁 member, xi,d
(2)is the value
value of the variable 𝑑 + 𝑟 by (𝑢𝑏
the − 𝑙𝑏
𝑑 ith GOA𝑑 member, is the number of GOA’s
of the dth variable proposed by the ith GOA member, N is the number of GOA’s members,
members, 𝑚 is the number of variables, 𝑟 is a random number in interval 0 − 1 , and
Here, m 𝑋 is is the
thenumber
population matrix of
of variables, r isGOA,
a random 𝑋 isnumber the ith in GOA interval member, [0 − 1𝑥], ,and is lb
the
d and ubd are
𝑙𝑏 and 𝑢𝑏 are the lower bound and upper bound of the dth variable, respectively.
value of thethe dthlower
variable proposed by the ith GOA
bound and upper bound of the dth variable, respectively. member, 𝑁 is the number of GOA’s
Given the fact that each GOA member is a candidate solution to the problem and
members, 𝑚 is Given the numberthe fact of that
variables,
each GOA 𝑟 is amember random isnumber a candidate in interval solution 0 −to1the, andproblem and
determines the problem variables, corresponding to each GOA member, a value for the
𝑙𝑏 and 𝑢𝑏determines
are the lower bound and
the problem upper bound
variables, corresponding of the dthto variable,
each GOA respectively.
member, a value for the
objective function can be evaluated. The calculated values for the objective function can
Given objective
the fact that eachcan
function GOA member is The
be evaluated. a candidate
calculatedsolution values for to the objective
problem function
and can be
be represented using a vector according to Equation (3).
determinesrepresented
the problemusing variables,
a vector corresponding
according to to Equationeach GOA (3). member, a value for the
objective function can be evaluated. The calculated 𝐹 values for 𝐹(𝑋 )
⎡⋮⎤  ⎡ the⎤objective function can
F F ( X⋮ )
 
be represented using a vector according to Equation 1
⎢ ⎥(3).  ⎢ . 1 ⎥
𝐹 =..  𝐹
⎢ ⎥ )  ⎢ .. )⎥ , = 𝐹(𝑋 (3)
𝐹  . 𝐹(𝑋

⎢ ⋮ ⎥ ⎢ ⋮ ⎥

⎡ ⋮ F⎤ =  F⎡  ⋮ ⎤=  F ( X ) 
   
, (3)
⎢ ⎥  .i⎢  ⎣𝐹 ⎦ ×⎥  ⎣𝐹(𝑋i )⎦
𝐹 = ⎢𝐹 ⎥  = 𝐹(𝑋 ) , .  ×

 .. ⎢ 

⎥  ..  (3)
Here, 𝐹 is the vector⎢ of ⋮ ⎥ objective ⎢ ⋮function ⎥ values and 𝐹 is the obtained value for
objective function based on ⎣𝐹the ⎦ ×ith FGOA N⎣𝐹(𝑋 N× 1)⎦ ×
member. F ( X N ) N ×1
Based on the comparison of the values obtained for the objective function, the mem-
Here, 𝐹 is Here, the vectorF is theof objective
vector offunction objectivevalues function andvalues𝐹 is the Fi is thevalue
andobtained for value for
obtained
ber that provided the best value for the objective function is identified as the best member.
objective
objective function function
based on the based
ith GOAon the ith GOA member.
member.
Since the position of the GOA members and, consequently, the values of the objective
Based on the Based on the comparison
comparison of the values of the valuesfor
obtained obtained
the objectivefor the function,
objective function,
the mem-the member
function
that providedare updated in eachfor iteration, the best member is of the population mustmember.
also be
ber that provided the best thevalue best forvalue
the objective the function
objective isfunction
identified identified
as as the best
the best member.
updated
Since the in each iteration.
Since the position of position
the GOAofmembers the GOAand, members consequently, and, consequently, the values the of the values of the objective
objective
function are updated in each iteration, the
function are updated in each iteration, the best member of the population must also be best member of the population must also be
updated in updated in each iteration.
each iteration.

3.3. Mathematical Model of GOA

After the initialization steps of the algorithm are completed, GOA enters the process
of updating the population members. In GOA, members of the population are updated in
two phases of exploration and exploitation.
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 8 of 37

3.3.1. Phase 1: Exploration

The first swing in a game of golf is struck in an area of the playground called the
grip. In the first swing, the players try to have the strongest shot towards the hole. In
GOA, the position of the best member is considered the hole. This strategy scans different
areas of the search space, indicating the exploration ability of the GOA in a global search.
The process of updating GOA members based on the exploration phase is mathematically
modeled using Equations (4) and (5). In this process, first, based on the simulation of
the player’s strongest shot to the ball, a new position is calculated for each GOA member
using Equation (4). Then, if the value of the objective function improves in this newly
calculated position, it replaces the previous position of the corresponding member based
on Equation (5). In the game of golf, players may hit shots where the ball passes the hole or
approaches the hole. The use of parameter I in Equation (4) is to simulate this situation. If
the parameter I is equal to 1, the ball approaches the hole. At the same time, in order to
increase the exploration ability of the algorithm in the global search, if the parameter I is
equal to 2, by increasing the possibility of moving the ball, the algorithm has more ability
to scan different areas of the search space.
P1
XiP1 : xi,d = xi,d + r × ( Bd − I × xi,d ) (4)

XiP1 , FiP1 < Fi


Xi = (5)
Xi , else,

Here, XiP1 is the new calculated status of the ith GOA member based on the exploration
P1 is its dth dimension, F P1 is its objective function value, B is the best member of
phase, xi,d i
GOA, Bd is its dth dimension, r is a random number in interval [0 − 1], and I is a random
number that is selected randomly from the set of {1, 2}.

3.3.2. Phase 2: Exploitation

On the playground, the area where the hole is located is known as the green. In this
area, players try to put the golf ball into the hole with kicks called putt. These precise kicks
are provided with less power so that the golf ball does not move away from the green area
and the hole. This strategy allows the area in which each GOA member is located to be
carefully scanned, which indicates the exploitation ability of the GOA in a local search.
The process of updating GOA members based on the exploitation phase is mathematically
modeled using Equations (6) and (7). In this phase of the GOA update, a new position is
calculated for each GOA member using Equation (6) based on the mathematical modeling
of low-power shots of the player to the ball. This new position, if it improves the value
of the objective function, replaces the previous position of the corresponding member
according to Equation (7).

P2 lbd + r × (ubd − lbd )

XiP2 : xi,d = xi,d + (1 − 2r ) × (6)
t

XiP2 , FiP2 < Fi


Xi = (7)
Xi , else,
Here, XiP2 is the new calculated status of the ith GOA member based on exploitation
P2 is its dth dimension, F P2 is its objective function value, and t is the iteration
phase, xi,d i
counter.
After each phase of updating the position of the population members, it should be
checked whether the new solutions belong to the set of feasible solutions or not. The
first group of constraints is related to the acceptable range for decision variables. If the
value of any of the decision variables exceeds the upper or lower band, its value is set on
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 9 of 37

the borderline values. This restriction of upper and lower bands for decision variables is
checked and, if necessary, solved by using Equations (8) and (9).

P1 P1
 xi,d , lbd ≤ xi,d ≤ ubd

P1 P1
ubd , xi,d > ubd
xi,d = (8)
 lb , x P1 < lb ,

d i,d d


P2 P2
 xi,d , lbd ≤ xi,d ≤ ubd

P2 P2 > ub
ubd , xi,d
xi,d = d (9)
 lb , x P2 < lb ,

d i,d d

The second group of constraints is related to the equal and unequal constraints of the
optimization problem. In order to deal with these limitations, the penalty factor has been
used. If any of the equal or unequal constraints are not met, it means that the new solution
does not belong to the set of feasible solutions. Therefore, by adding the penalty coefficient
to the value of the objective function of the problem, the new solution is recognized as an
inappropriate solution, and it will not be possible to choose that solution as the solution to
the problem. This group of constraints has been checked using Equation (10).

Fi = Fi + nq × PFi (10)

Here, nq is the number of constraints of the problem that are not established and PFi is
the penalty factor in which PFi = 105 × | Fi |.

3.4. Repetition Process, Pseudocode, and Flowchart of GOA

The first iteration of the GOA is completed after updating all its members based on
the first and second phases. Based on the new values obtained, the GOA enters the next
iteration, and the update process is repeated based on Equations (4)–(10) until the algorithm
is fully implemented. Finally, the best candidate solution discovered during the iteration of
the algorithm is introduced as the solution to the problem. The flowchart of GOA imple-
mentation steps is presented in Figure 1 and its pseudocode is presented in Algorithm 1.
The complete set of codes is available at the following repository: [Link]
com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/133817-golf-optimization-algorithm-goa. (accessed on
13 August 2023)

Algorithm 1. Pseudocode of the GOA.

Start GOA.
1. Input the optimization problem information.
2. Set T (number of iterations) and N (number of GOA members).
3. For t = 1:T
4. Update best member of GOA as hole.
5. For i = 1:N
7. Phase 1:
Calculate new status of ith GOA member based on exploration phase of GOA
8.
using Equation (4).
9. Update ith GOA member using Equation (5).
10. Phase2: Exploitation
Calculate new status of ith GOA member based on exploitation phase of GOA
11.
using Equation (6).
12. Update ith GOA member using Equation (7).
13. end
14. Save best candidate solution so far.
15. end
16. Output best obtained solution.
End GOA.
Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 35

Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 10 of 37

End GOA.

[Link]
Figure Flowchartof
ofthe
theGOA.
GOA.

3.5.
[Link]
ComputationalComplexity
Complexity
In
In this
this subsection, the computational
computationalcomplexity
complexityofofthetheGOA
GOAis is analyzed.
analyzed. TheThe ini-
initial-
tialization
ization of ofthethe
GOAGOA forfor a problem
a problem with
with thethe number
number mm ofof
thethe decision
decision variable
variable is is equal
equal to
to O(Nm),
O(Nm), whereNNisisthe
where thenumber
numberof ofGOA
GOA members.
members. In In each iteration, the
the GOA
GOA member
member
update
updateprocess
processisisperformed
performedin intwo
twophases,
phases,which
whichhave
haveaacomputational
computationalcomplexity
complexityequalequal
to O(2NmT), where T is the maximum number of iterations of the algorithm.
to O(2NmT), where T is the maximum number of iterations of the algorithm. Accordingly, Accordingly,
the
thetotal
totalcomputational
computationalcomplexity
complexityofofthe
theGOA equaltotoO(Nm
GOAisisequal O(Nm(1(1++2T)).
2T)).
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 11 of 37

4. Simulation Studies and Results

In this section, the capability of the GOA in handling optimization problems and
providing solutions is evaluated. For this purpose, a set of fifty-two standard objective
functions of unimodal and multimodal types [112], as well as the CEC 2017 test suite, are
employed. To analyze the ability of the GOA in optimization applications, its results have
been compared with ten metaheuristic algorithms: GA, PSO, GSA, TLBO, MVO, GWO,
WOA, MPA, TSA, and RSA. From the numerous metaheuristic algorithms designed so far,
ten algorithms have been selected for comparison with the proposed GOA algorithm. The
reason for choosing these ten competitor algorithms is that GA and PSO are the best-known
and most widely used metaheuristic algorithms. GSA, TLBO, GWO, MVO, and WOA,
introduced between 2009 and 2016, have been popular methods for researchers and have
been widely cited. MPA, TSA, and RSA are recently published metaheuristic algorithms
that have quickly gained the attention of scientists and have been used in a variety of
real-world applications. The control parameters are adjusted as specified in Table 1. Re-
garding competitor algorithms, GA, PSO, GSA, GWO, MVO, WOA, MPA, TSA, and RSA
have a time complexity equal to O( Nm (1 + T )), and TLBO has a computational complex-
ity equal to O( Nm (1 + 2T )). Therefore, it is clear that the proposed GOA approach has
higher computational complexity than GA, PSO, GSA, GWO, MVO, WOA, MPA, TSA,
and RSA as well as similar computational complexity to TLBO. However, to make a fair
comparison, we used the population size of each metaheuristic algorithm in the simulation
analysis so that the total number of function evaluations is the same for all employed
algorithms. The population size for GOA and TLBO is considered equal to 30 members,
and for GA, PSO, GSA, GWO, MVO, WOA, MPA, TSA, and RSA it is considered equal to 60
members. The proposed GOA approach and competitor algorithms are each implemented
in twenty independent runs in optimizing each objective function. The proposed GOA
approach and competitor algorithms are each implemented in twenty independent runs
in optimizing each objective function. To optimize functions F1 to F23, GOA and each
competitor algorithm are used in twenty independent runs with 50,000 function evalu-
ations (i.e., FEs = 50, 000). For solving the CEC 2017 test suite, the proposed GOA and
the competitor algorithms are employed in fifty-one independent runs, each containing
110, 000 • m function evaluations (i.e., FEs = 10, 000 • m), where m is the number of problem
variables set to 10. Simulation results are reported using six indicators: mean, best, worst,
standard deviation (std), median, and rank. Experiments have been implemented on the
software MATLAB R2022a using a 64-bit Core i7 processor with 3.20 GHz and 16 GB main
memory.

Table 1. Assigned values to the control parameters of competitor algorithms.

Algorithm Parameter Value

GA
Type Real coded.
Selection Roulette wheel (Proportionate).
Crossover Whole arithmetic (Probability = 0.8, α ∈ [−0.5, 1.5]).
Mutation Gaussian (Probability = 0.05).
PSO
Topology Fully connected.
Cognitive and social constant (C1 , C2 ) = (2, 2).
Inertia weight Linear reduction from 0.9 to 0.1
Velocity limit 10% of the dimension range.
GSA
Alpha, G0 , Rnorm , Rpower 20, 100, 2, 1
TLBO
TF : the teaching factor TF = round [(1 + rand)].
random number rand rand is a random number from the interval [0, 1].
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 12 of 37

Table 1. Cont.

Algorithm Parameter Value

GWO
Convergence parameter (a) a: Linear reduction from 2 to 0.
MVO
wormhole existence probability (WEP) Min(WEP) = 0.2 and Max(WEP) = 1.
Exploitation accuracy over the iterations (p) p = 6.
WOA
Convergence parameter a a: Linear reduction from 2 to 0.
Parameters r and l r is a random vector in [0, 1],
l is a random number in [−1, 1].
TSA
Pmin and Pmax 1, 4
c1 , c2 , c3 random numbers lie in the range [0, 1].
MPA
Constant number P = 0.5,
Random vector R is a vector of uniform random numbers from [0, 1].
Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) FADs = 0.2,
Binary vector U = 0 or 1.
RSA
Sensitive parameter α α = 0.1
Sensitive parameter β β = 0.01
Evolutionary Sense (ES) ES are randomly decreasing values between 2 and −2.

4.1. Evaluation of Unimodal Functions

The selected unimodal objective functions, including F1 to F7, have no local optimum,
and the purpose of their optimization is to evaluate the exploitation ability of optimization
algorithms. The implementation results of the GOA and competitor algorithms on F1 to F7
are reported in Table 2. Based on the obtained results, the proposed algorithm with high
exploitation ability has provided the global optimal solution for functions F1, F2, F3, F4, F5,
and F6. In addition, in F7 optimization, the proposed algorithm is the first best optimizer
compared to competitor algorithms. The analysis of the simulation results shows that the
proposed GOA has provided far superior results compared to the competitor algorithms
and has a high exploitation ability compared to the competitor algorithms.

Table 2. Optimization results of unimodal functions (F1–F7).

GA PSO GSA TLBO GWO MVO WOA TSA MPA RSA GOA
9.92E- 4.15E- 8.45E- 6.1E- 1.26E- 1.88E-
mean 34.5437 0.011351 0.141392 6.46E-84 0
17 75 59 150 47 49
2.18E- 5.36E- 1.46E- 5.78E- 1.1E-
best 21.8428 0.085887 1.9E-50 2.3E-52 9.43E-93 0
05 17 76 61 172
2.23E- 2.18E- 6.53E- 1.2E- 9.02E- 1.75E-
worst 48.27454 0.097758 0.229047 1.19E-82 0
16 74 58 148 47 48
F1
4.27E- 5.75E- 1.47E- 2.7E- 2.43E- 4.01E-
std 8.103596 0.021904 0.035688 2.64E-83 0
17 75 58 149 47 49
8.44E- 4.14E- 2.2E- 7.09E- 1.92E-
median 33.39374 0.004052 1.9E-75 0.134685 3.69E-88 0
17 59 160 49 50
rank 11 9 8 4 5 10 2 7 6 3 1
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 13 of 37

Table 2. Cont.

GA PSO GSA TLBO GWO MVO WOA TSA MPA RSA GOA
5.21E- 3.96E- 9.56E- 4.8E- 1.05E-
mean 2.893674 1.469507 0.256823 5.4E-28 6.78E-46 0
08 39 35 104 28

3.14E- 8.03E- 3.4E- 1.05E- 1.58E-

best 1.771522 0.129615 1.9E-36 0.162297 4.79E-49 0
08 40 117 30 29

7.28E- 2.83E- 9.4E- 6.38E- 2.66E-

worst 4.187515 10.91586 1.2E-38 0.393994 5.43E-45 0
F2 08 34 103 28 27

1.18E- 3.01E- 8.16E- 2.1E-

std 0.688131 2.427296 0.061766 1.6E-28 7.3E-28 1.51E-45 0
08 39 35 103

2.99E- 7.25E- 8.9E- 3.99E- 2.14E-

median 2.928265 0.819186 4.9E-08 0.25831 3.56E-47 0
39 35 108 29 28

rank 11 10 8 4 5 9 2 6 7 3 1
1.19E- 6.36E- 1.96E-
mean 2151.287 874.6891 474.5464 13.69546 19397.34 2.7E-12 4.76E-58 0
24 15 12
8.36E- 7.31E- 2.74E- 1.58E-
best 1306.053 38.39523 191.6011 6.427129 1155.268 1.19E-69 0
29 19 17 21
1.56E- 5.42E- 2.32E- 2.68E-
worst 3690.226 5365.03 1028.324 23.71885 46521.37 5.35E-57 0
F3 23 14 11 11
3.52E- 1.38E- 5.22E- 7.22E-
std 651.9863 1532.811 210.8921 5.422219 11275.71 1.3E-57 0
24 14 12 12
3.35E- 1.58E- 9.99E- 1.21E-
median 2013.684 279.0787 413.2552 12.17659 22075.51 1.49E-61 0
26 16 14 13
rank 10 9 8 3 4 7 11 5 6 2 1
4.73E- 1.34E- 3.38E-
mean 3.182379 6.409232 1.347784 0.575497 45.73347 0.006311 1.34E-35 0
30 14 19

1.93E- 8.45E- 7.64E- 6.36E-

best 2.460207 2.625176 0.203873 0.047089 3.7E-20 3.83E-40 0
08 32 16 06

2.31E- 8.65E-
worst 4.320177 9.826729 3.852453 1.1E-13 0.98408 88.30133 0.074488 1.66E-34 0
F4 29 19

5.62E- 2.17E-
std 0.440358 2.122281 1.08719 2.5E-14 0.180899 32.22163 0.016314 3.82E-35 0
30 19

2.21E- 4.31E- 2.94E-

median 3.158793 6.156931 1.060589 0.59779 42.59176 0.001452 2.7E-37 0
30 15 19

rank 9 10 8 3 5 7 11 6 4 2 1
mean 512.3849 4685.587 26.4173 26.85637 26.80292 237.6288 27.19238 28.27683 23.63643 27.45887 0
best 227.6302 6.358709 25.84867 25.97881 25.29612 26.95008 26.45993 26.48034 22.44977 26.21217 0

F5 worst 1904.539 90133.63 27.6268 28.55723 27.93213 1709.385 28.5018 28.86228 24.27026 28.59278 0
std 355.6761 20115.89 0.455677 0.70839 0.739022 398.9057 0.541389 0.706209 0.4456 0.72896 0
median 440.5026 81.59334 26.32633 26.69676 27.11089 63.20481 27.04987 28.63414 23.65578 27.18532 0
rank 10 11 3 5 4 9 6 8 2 7 1
1.25E- 1.86E-
mean 34.86707 0.060897 1.078098 0.705754 0.136757 0.077372 3.848483 1.54416 0
16 09

4.71E- 1.77E- 1.03E-

best 16.97404 9.5E-06 0.54459 0.067418 0.009203 2.589849 0.862897 0
17 05 09

4.43E- 4.73E-
worst 73.13031 0.835192 1.595351 1.724524 0.237401 0.713129 4.796125 2.393213 0
F6 16 09

9.08E- 8.37E-
std 17.35489 0.184214 0.298311 0.459725 0.03697 0.153834 0.592668 0.399298 0
17 10

8.57E- 1.71E-
median 31.4086 0.009074 1.088354 0.739962 0.14036 0.036663 4.050477 1.639428 0
17 09

rank 11 4 2 8 7 6 5 10 3 9 1
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 14 of 37

Table 2. Cont.

GA PSO GSA TLBO GWO MVO WOA TSA MPA RSA GOA
mean 0.010645 0.164599 0.061373 0.001623 0.000817 0.009972 0.001116 0.005855 0.000615 0.000401 3.56E-05
7.13E-
best 0.003995 0.095988 0.019791 0.000455 0.00012 0.0056 0.00218 0.000215 2.99E-05 5.88E-07
05
worst 0.017568 0.285254 0.112113 0.003976 0.001565 0.018206 0.003835 0.013816 0.00151 0.000953 0.000105
F7
std 0.004044 0.052236 0.023729 0.001106 0.000407 0.003234 0.001128 0.003043 0.000314 0.000307 3.34E-05
median 0.00971 0.153973 0.056558 0.001292 0.000774 0.009512 0.000817 0.004586 0.000571 0.000317 2.71E-05
rank 9 11 10 6 4 8 5 7 3 2 1
sum rank 71 64 47 33 34 56 42 49 31 28 7
mean rank 10.14286 9.142857 6.714286 4.714286 4.857143 8 6 7 4.428571 4 1
total rank 11 10 7 4 5 9 6 8 3 2 1

4.2. Evaluation of High-Dimensional Multimodal Functions

The selected high-dimensional multimodal objective functions, including F8 to F13,
are complex problems that, in addition to the global optimum, have many local optimums.
Therefore, these functions are suitable for analyzing the exploration ability of optimization
algorithms in the global search of the problem-solving space. The optimization results of
F8 to F13 functions using GOA and competitor algorithms are reported in Table 3. Based
on the results, the proposed algorithm with its high exploration ability has well identified
the main optimal region for functions F9 and F11 and converged to the global optimum.
Moreover, the proposed approach is the first best optimizer for functions F8, F10, F12,
and F13. The analysis of the simulation results indicates that the proposed algorithm,
with its high exploration ability, has provided a very superior performance compared to
the competitor algorithms in handling F8 to F13 high-dimensional multimodal objective
functions.

Table 3. Optimization results of high-dimensional multimodal functions (F8–F13).

GA PSO GSA TLBO GWO MVO WOA TSA MPA RSA GOA
mean −8348.04 −7174.66 −2512.77 −5400.22 −6359.7 −7991.99 −10779.6 −5925.69 −9619.16 −7548.39 −12,569.5
best −9571.05 −8778.83 −2969.06 −6984.4 −7834.43 −9028.56 −12,569.5 −7583.05 −10,355.8 −9259.4 −12,569.5
F8 worst −6569.32 −5206.21 −2015.67 −4465 −4357.11 −7097.08 −8026.53 −4728.78 −9025.09 −5383.42 −12,569.5
std 757.8547 895.3058 260.3632 685.2514 877.8481 632.0867 1645.717 716.9043 417.5433 1154.307 1.87E-12
median −8603.98 −7160.36 −2498.05 −5345.39 −6523.61 −7972.62 −10,889.5 −5954.46 −9629.9 −7805.26 −12,569.5
rank 4 7 11 10 8 5 2 9 3 6 1
mean 58.86846 65.44741 29.15228 0 0.980934 103.7514 0 160.3345 0 0 0

best 16.8933 27.85958 16.9143 0 0 80.65951 0 115.0893 0 0 0

worst 95.10693 126.4306 46.76302 0 9.129372 141.3836 0 231.9054 0 0 0

F9
std 19.16566 23.37939 7.881373 0 2.70233 15.81913 0 31.28116 0 0 0

median 58.96616 62.19288 26.86388 0 0 102.5599 0 165.7714 0 0 0

rank 4 5 3 1 2 6 1 7 1 1 1
mean 3.546679 2.925435 8.19E−09 4.44E−15 1.58E−14 0.44077 3.2E−15 1.468278 4.09E−15 4.54E−13 8.88E−16
best 2.698017 1.897756 6.07E−09 4.44E−15 1.15E−14 0.087453 8.88E−16 7.99E−15 8.88E−16 8.88E−16 8.88E−16

F10 worst 4.12547 4.878091 1.12E−08 4.44E−15 2.22E−14 2.141281 7.99E−15 3.546227 4.44E−15 9.03E−12 8.88E−16
std 0.430288 0.938045 1.35E−09 0 2.96E−15 0.611269 2.09E−15 1.672925 1.09E−15 2.02E−12 0
median 3.502708 2.817299 8.05E−09 4.44E−15 1.51E−14 0.133476 4.44E−15 2.22E−14 4.44E−15 8.88E−16 8.88E−16
rank 11 10 7 4 5 8 2 9 3 6 1
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 15 of 37

Table 3. Cont.

GA PSO GSA TLBO GWO MVO WOA TSA MPA RSA GOA
mean 1.582293 0.320849 8.822246 0 0.005007 0.421495 0.009403 0.006064 0 0 0

best 1.214307 0.006832 3.255758 0 0 0.253372 0 0 0 0 0

worst 2.154375 2.005863 18.13903 0 0.047681 0.592456 0.081925 0.017241 0 0 0

F11
std 0.243938 0.466655 4.109461 0 0.011945 0.079737 0.023873 0.006718 0 0 0

median 1.535265 0.099446 9.042558 0 0 0.423356 0 0.004493 0 0 0

rank 7 5 8 1 2 6 4 3 1 1 1
mean 0.157037 1.423618 0.127676 0.072387 0.037371 0.960236 0.011252 6.958465 2.31E−10 0.069238 1.62E−32
best 0.035385 4.47E−05 3.7E−19 0.03343 0.006546 0.000691 0.001059 0.404251 7.31E−11 0.012096 1.57E−32
worst 0.359563 3.854956 0.635088 0.178688 0.073536 3.859424 0.083424 15.28632 5.8E−10 0.179779 2.54E−32
F12
std 0.091936 1.221873 0.213301 0.030545 0.019632 0.990186 0.01782 4.73628 1.16E−10 0.039794 2.16E−33
median 0.147131 1.2003 1.07E−18 0.064612 0.036212 0.641166 0.00666 7.798794 1.93E−10 0.061529 1.57E−32
rank 8 10 7 6 4 9 3 11 2 5 1
mean 2.614757 3.869959 0.100869 0.983304 0.633228 0.030971 0.261863 2.988147 0.001652 1.803955 7.65E−32

best 1.149958 0.263545 4.86E−18 0.58094 0.113218 0.016912 0.049589 2.280729 1.28E−09 1.051985 1.35E−32

worst 4.837813 17.42028 1.222664 1.450667 1.136582 0.066663 0.519796 5.169063 0.010987 2.793816 6.07E−31
F13
std 1.063186 4.538492 0.28389 0.239798 0.282332 0.012548 0.141363 0.695106 0.004024 0.41072 1.61E−31

median 2.458018 1.703829 1.46E−17 0.929117 0.638573 0.028099 0.253052 2.728009 3.35E−09 1.694537 1.35E−32

rank 9 11 4 7 6 3 5 10 2 8 1
sum rank 43 48 40 29 27 37 17 49 12 27 6
mean rank 7.166667 8 6.666667 4.833333 4.5 6.166667 2.833333 8.166667 2 4.5 1
total rank 8 9 7 5 4 6 3 10 2 4 1

4.3. Evaluation of Fixed-Dimensional Multimodal Functions

The selected fixed-dimensional multimodal objective functions, including F14 to F23,
in addition to the global optimum, have a limited number of local optimums. This feature
makes these functions suitable for analyzing the ability of metaheuristic algorithms to
balance exploration and exploitation. The optimization results of functions F14 to F23 are
reported in Table 4. The simulation results show that the proposed GOA is the first best
optimizer for function F15. In addition, in other cases where the GOA has similar conditions
in the mean criterion with other competitor algorithms, the proposed GOA has performed
better by providing better values for the std index. The analysis of the simulation results
shows that the proposed GOA has performed better compared to competitor algorithms in
optimizing functions F14 to F23 and has a superior ability in creating a balance between
exploration and exploitation compared to competitor algorithms. Boxplot diagrams and
convergence curves of metaheuristic algorithms and GOA in handling functions F1 to F23
are drawn in Figures 2 and 3.
 Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 35
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 16 of 37

Figure
Figure 2. [Link]
Boxplotsofof the
the GOA
GOA and
and competitor
competitor algorithms
algorithms onon
F1F1
toto F23
F23 test
test functions.
functions.
 Biomimetics2023,
Biomimetics 2023,8,8,386
x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of
17 of3735

Figure 3. Convergence curves of the GOA and competitor algorithms on F1 to F23 test functions.
Figure 3. Convergence curves of the GOA and competitor algorithms on F1 to F23 test functions.
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 18 of 37

Table 4. Optimization results of high-dimensional multimodal functions (F14–F23).

GA PSO GSA TLBO GWO MVO WOA TSA MPA RSA GOA
mean 1.012829 3.645876 4.086478 1.196416 4.866265 0.998004 2.816492 8.893169 0.998004 4.823742 0.998004
best 0.998004 0.998004 1.019228 0.998004 0.998004 0.998004 0.998004 0.998004 0.998004 0.998004 0.998004
worst 1.194013 11.7187 9.831309 2.982105 12.67051 0.998004 10.76318 12.67051 0.998004 12.67051 0.998004
F14
std 0.045865 3.732496 2.561839 0.610693 4.26894 3.16E−12 2.996068 4.787012 5.09E−17 3.851995 0
median 0.998006 1.992031 3.970242 0.998004 2.982105 0.998004 1.495018 12.67051 0.998004 3.96825 0.998004
rank 3 6 7 4 9 2 5 10 1 8 1
mean 0.00603 0.001432 0.002131 0.000453 0.005459 0.004558 0.00063 0.008535 0.000311 0.005053 0.000307

best 0.000644 0.000307 0.001143 0.00031 0.000307 0.000308 0.000312 0.000308 0.000308 0.000307 0.000307

worst 0.023479 0.019276 0.004428 0.001241 0.020363 0.020363 0.002178 0.020942 0.000316 0.022553 0.000307
F15
std 0.007244 0.00422 0.000696 0.0003 0.008834 0.008113 0.000457 0.009974 2.25E−06 0.008991 1.90E−19

median 0.004113 0.000307 0.00203 0.000315 0.000308 0.000627 0.000481 0.001072 0.000311 0.000653 0.000307

rank 10 5 6 3 9 7 4 11 2 8 1
mean −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03005 −1.03163 −0.99082 −1.03163
best −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03163
worst −1.03161 −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03162 −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03163 −1 −1.03163 −0.21546 −1.03163
F16
std 4.59E−06 1.35E−16 1.35E−16 1.59E−06 2.98E−09 3.18E−08 8.38E−11 0.007072 2.28E−16 0.1825 8.31E−17
median −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03163 −1.03163
rank 7 1 1 6 4 5 3 8 2 9 1
mean 0.422023 0.65439 0.397887 0.403109 0.397898 0.397887 0.397888 0.397909 0.397887 0.397887 0.397887

best 0.397887 0.397887 0.397887 0.397893 0.397887 0.397887 0.397887 0.397888 0.397887 0.397887 0.397887

worst 0.832817 1.937365 0.397887 0.500697 0.3981 0.397888 0.39789 0.397946 0.397887 0.397887 0.397887
F17
std 0.09697 0.526896 0 0.02297 4.74E−05 7.33E−08 7.31E−07 1.7E−05 0 8.97E−16 0

median 0.398304 0.397887 0.397887 0.397965 0.397888 0.397887 0.397887 0.397907 0.397887 0.397887 0.397887

rank 8 9 1 7 5 3 4 6 1 2 1
mean 8.421245 3 3 3 7.050008 3 3.000018 14.20181 3 13.8 3
best 3 3 3 3 3.000001 3 3 3.000001 3 3 3

F18 worst 30.31682 3 3 3.000002 84.00001 3.000001 3.000147 92.03579 3 84 3

std 11.11524 2.82E−15 2.79E−15 4.58E−07 18.11215 3.24E−07 3.46E−05 26.59322 1E−15 20.3563 2.88E−16
median 3.000586 3 3 3 3.000005 3 3.000005 3.000009 3 3 3
rank 8 2 3 5 7 4 6 10 1 9 1
mean −3.86265 −3.82413 −3.86278 −3.86051 −3.8621 −3.86278 −3.86068 −3.86225 −3.86278 −3.74604 −3.86278
best −3.86278 −3.86278 −3.86278 −3.8627 −3.86278 −3.86278 −3.86276 −3.86278 −3.86278 −3.86278 −3.86278

F19 worst −3.86161 −3.08976 −3.86278 −3.85474 −3.8549 −3.86278 −3.8549 −3.85501 −3.86278 −3.08976 −3.86274
std 0.000338 0.172852 1.92E−15 0.003385 0.002056 2.03E−07 0.002361 0.001753 2.28E−15 0.282864 9.02E−16

median −3.86278 −3.86278 −3.86278 −3.86238 −3.86277 −3.86278 −3.86162 −3.86273 −3.86278 −3.86278 −3.86278
rank 4 9 1 8 6 3 7 5 2 10 1
mean −3.19843 −3.30089 −3.322 −3.27123 −3.25578 −3.26246 −3.25729 −3.25227 −3.322 −3.19517 −3.322
best −3.31774 −3.322 −3.322 −3.31452 −3.32199 −3.32199 −3.32181 −3.32165 −3.322 −3.322 −3.322
F20 worst −3.02507 −3.13764 −3.322 −3.15712 −3.13762 −3.20273 −3.08687 −3.08336 −3.322 −1.9217 −3.322
std 0.081657 0.052988 3.67E−16 0.056572 0.06962 0.06108 0.091694 0.075807 3.81E−16 0.311345 1.41E−17
median −3.19362 −3.322 −3.322 −3.30495 −3.26241 −3.26254 −3.32111 −3.26131 −3.322 −3.322 −3.322
rank 9 3 1 4 7 5 6 8 2 10 1
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 19 of 37

Table 4. Cont.

GA PSO GSA TLBO GWO MVO WOA TSA MPA RSA GOA
mean −4.05229 −6.6523 −6.21031 −6.63717 −9.6474 −8.12535 −9.89304 −5.79327 −10.1532 −8.78928 −10.1532
best −7.88766 −10.1532 −10.1532 −9.30299 −10.153 −10.1532 −10.1529 −10.1034 −10.1532 −10.1532 −10.1532
worst −2.294 −2.63047 −2.68286 −4.07333 −5.09985 −5.05516 −5.05519 −2.62401 −10.1532 −0.88199 −10.1532
F21
std 2.072922 3.659234 3.702041 2.127264 1.555137 2.54809 1.138781 3.016364 2.41E−15 3.181731 2.07E−17

median −2.62469 −7.62699 −4.18158 −6.69275 −10.1527 −10.1531 −10.1516 −4.95475 −10.1532 −10.1524 −10.1532
rank 11 7 9 8 4 6 3 10 2 5 1
mean −6.76101 −8.1775 −9.6989 −8.06962 −10.4024 −8.04873 −8.69025 −7.01929 −10.4029 −8.05397 −10.4029
best −10.2388 −10.4029 −10.4029 −9.9566 −10.4029 −10.4029 −10.4029 −10.3661 −10.4029 −10.4029 −10.4029
worst −2.5174 −2.75193 −4.67391 −3.94552 −10.402 −2.76589 −2.76539 −2.68875 −10.4029 −0.90808 −10.4029
F22
std 3.154309 3.169789 1.757215 1.582401 0.000256 3.030069 2.723616 3.582683 3.65E−15 3.599306 1.61E−16
median −7.94704 −10.4029 −10.4029 −8.43317 −10.4025 −10.4029 −10.4006 −9.45916 −10.4029 −10.3962 −10.4029
rank 11 6 4 7 3 9 5 10 2 8 1
mean −8.18721 −5.6555 −10.5364 −8.03277 −10.536 −9.99793 −9.6541 −7.04655 −10.5364 −7.32853 −10.5364
best −10.3471 −10.5364 −10.5364 −9.58103 −10.5363 −10.5364 −10.5362 −10.5028 −10.5364 −10.5364 −10.5364
worst −2.66877 −2.42173 −10.5364 −3.95463 −10.5356 −5.12847 −3.83473 −2.41642 −10.5364 −1.85948 −10.5363
F23
std 2.385851 3.382098 1.58E−15 1.775707 0.000194 1.657273 2.150189 3.807051 2.31E−15 4.034066 1.95E−16

median −8.74676 −3.83543 −10.5364 −8.62434 −10.536 −10.5363 −10.5346 −10.1711 −10.5364 −10.508 −10.5364
rank 6 10 1 7 3 4 5 9 2 8 1
sum rank 77 58 34 59 57 48 48 87 17 77 10

mean rank 7.7 5.8 3.4 5.9 5.7 4.8 4.8 8.7 1.7 7.7 1
total rank 8 6 3 7 5 4 4 9 2 8 1

Based on the obtained results, it can be seen that the proposed GOA approach has
provided better or similar solutions to some competing algorithms in most benchmark
functions F1 to F23. The question that is raised is as follows: is this superiority of the GOA
not in contrast with the concept of the NFL theorem? In response to this question, it should
be explained that according to the NFL theorem, the superior performance of the GOA
in solving a set of benchmark functions is no guarantee for the same performance of the
proposed approach in solving other optimization applications. It should also be noted that
functions F1 to F23 are only a small set of the world of optimization problems. Therefore,
in solving other optimization problems, the GOA may not provide better performance
compared to competing algorithms. As seen in the next subsection, in handling some
benchmark functions from the CEC 2017 test suite, the proposed GOA approach was not
able to provide better results compared to competing algorithms. On the other hand,
there is always the possibility that newer metaheuristic algorithms will be designed and
developed that have better performance compared to the GOA. Therefore, it is by no means
claimed that the GOA is the best optimizer for all optimization applications. According to
this, the results obtained from GOA’s performance have no contrast with the NFL theorem.

4.4. Evaluation of the CEC 2017 Test Suite

In this subsection, the efficiency of the GOA in handling the CEC 2017 test suite is
evaluated. This test suite has thirty benchmark functions consisting of three unimodal
functions of C17-F1 to C17-F3, seven multimodal functions of C17-F4 to C17-F10, ten
hybrid functions of C17-F11 to C17-F20, and ten composition functions of C17-F21 to
C17-F30. Full details and a description of the CEC 2017 test suite are provided in [113].
The implementation results of the GOA and competitor algorithms on the CEC 2017 test
suite are reported in Table 5. The boxplot diagrams obtained from the performance of
metaheuristic algorithms are drawn in Figure 4. Based on the obtained results, GOA is
the first best optimizer for functions C17-F1, C17-F3 to C17-F21, C17-F23, C17-F24, and
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 20 of 37

C17-F27 to C17-F30. The analysis of the optimization results shows that the proposed GOA
approach has provided better results in most of the benchmark functions; while obtaining
the first rank of the best optimizer, it has provided superior performance in handling
Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 the
of 35
CEC 2017 test suite compared to competitor algorithms.

Figure 4. Cont.
 Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 35
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 21 of 37

[Link]
Figure Boxplotsofofthe
theGOA
GOAand
andcompetitor
competitoralgorithms
algorithmsononthe
theCEC
CEC2017
2017test
testsuite.
suite.

[Link]
Table Optimizationresults
resultsofofthe
theCEC
CEC2017
2017test
testsuite.
suite.

GOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
GOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean
mean
1.00E+02
1.00E+02
1.05E+10
1.05E+10
3.62E+07
3.62E+07
1.78E+09
1.78E+09
6.61E+06
6.61E+06
7.71E+03 9.05E+07 1.51E+08 7.63E+02 3.22E+03 1.22E+07
7.71E+03 9.05E+07 1.51E+08 7.63E+02 3.22E+03 1.22E+07
best
best 1.00E+02
1.00E+02 9.05E+09
9.05E+09 1.15E+04
1.15E+04 3.82E+08
3.82E+08 4.82E+06
4.82E+06 4.90E+03 2.85E+04
4.90E+03 2.85E+04 6.72E+07
6.72E+071.00E+02
1.00E+023.52E+02
3.52E+026.29E+06
6.29E+06
worst
worst 1.00E+02
1.00E+02 1.25E+10
1.25E+10 1.31E+08
1.31E+08 3.89E+09
3.89E+09 8.71E+06
8.71E+06 1.14E+04 3.29E+08
1.14E+04 3.29E+08 3.64E+08
3.64E+081.83E+03
1.83E+039.55E+03
9.55E+031.74E+07
1.74E+07
C17-F1
C17-
F1 std
std 0.00E+00
0.00E+00 1.64E+09
1.64E+09 6.77E+07
6.77E+07 1.66E+09
1.66E+09 1.75E+06
1.75E+06 3.21E+03 1.69E+08
3.21E+03 1.69E+08 1.52E+08
1.52E+087.96E+02
7.96E+024.52E+03
4.52E+034.95E+06
4.95E+06
median
median 1.00E+02
1.00E+02 1.02E+10
1.02E+10 6.63E+06
6.63E+06 1.43E+09
1.43E+09 6.47E+06
6.47E+06 7.29E+03 1.66E+07
7.29E+03 1.66E+07 8.62E+07
8.62E+075.60E+02
5.60E+021.50E+03
1.50E+031.24E+07
1.24E+07
rank
rank 11 11
11 77 10
10 55 4 4 8 8 9 9 2 2 3 3 6 6
mean
mean 3.00E+02
3.00E+02 9.88E+03
9.88E+03 1.44E+03
1.44E+03 1.15E+04
1.15E+04 1.77E+03
1.77E+03 3.00E+02 3.14E+03 7.37E+02 1.05E+04 3.00E+02 1.51E+04
3.00E+02 3.14E+03 7.37E+02 1.05E+04 3.00E+02 1.51E+04
best
best
3.00E+02
3.00E+02
5.33E+03
5.33E+03
8.04E+02
8.04E+02
4.37E+03
4.37E+03
6.27E+02
6.27E+02
3.00E+02 1.56E+03 4.76E+02 6.61E+03 3.00E+02 4.45E+03
3.00E+02 1.56E+03 4.76E+02 6.61E+03 3.00E+02 4.45E+03
worst 3.00E+02 1.32E+04 2.59E+03 1.62E+04 3.41E+03 3.00E+02 6.03E+03 9.08E+02 1.43E+04 3.00E+02 2.39E+04
C17-F3 worst
C17- 3.00E+02 1.32E+04 2.59E+03 1.62E+04 3.41E+03 3.00E+02 6.03E+03 9.08E+02 1.43E+04 3.00E+02 2.39E+04
std 0.00E+00 3.84E+03 8.76E+02 5.35E+03 1.39E+03 5.34E-02 2.19E+03 2.01E+02 3.36E+03 0.00E+00 1.08E+04
F3 5.34E-
median
std 3.00E+02
0.00E+00 1.05E+04
3.84E+03 1.17E+03
8.76E+02 1.27E+04
5.35E+03 1.51E+03
1.39E+03 3.00E+02 2.48E+03 2.01E+02
2.19E+03 7.82E+023.36E+03
1.06E+040.00E+00
3.00E+021.08E+04
1.61E+04
02
rank 1 8 5 10 6 3 7 4 9 2 11
median
mean 3.00E+02
4.00E+02 1.05E+04
1.38E+03 1.17E+03
4.07E+02 1.27E+04
5.81E+02 1.51E+03
4.26E+02 3.00E+02
4.03E+02 2.48E+03
4.12E+02 7.82E+02
4.09E+021.06E+04
4.05E+023.00E+02
4.21E+021.61E+04
4.15E+02
best
rank 4.00E+02
1 8.57E+02
8 4.03E+02
5 4.80E+02
10 4.07E+02
6 4.02E+02
3 4.06E+02
7 4.09E+02
4 4.04E+02
9 4.00E+02
2 4.12E+02
11
worst 4.00E+02 1.88E+03 4.12E+02 6.99E+02 4.75E+02 4.05E+02 4.29E+02 4.10E+02 4.06E+02 4.72E+02 4.19E+02
C17-F4
std 0.00E+00 4.66E+02 4.80E+00 1.14E+02 3.53E+01 1.87E+00 1.21E+01 5.98E-01 1.26E+00 3.67E+01 3.22E+00
median 4.00E+02 1.38E+03 4.07E+02 5.73E+02 4.11E+02 4.04E+02 4.06E+02 4.10E+02 4.04E+02 4.06E+02 4.15E+02
rank 1 11 4 10 9 2 6 5 3 8 7
mean 5.01E+02 5.75E+02 5.13E+02 5.67E+02 5.42E+02 5.25E+02 5.13E+02 5.35E+02 5.56E+02 5.29E+02 5.29E+02
C17-F5 best 5.01E+02 5.60E+02 5.09E+02 5.45E+02 5.24E+02 5.11E+02 5.09E+02 5.30E+02 5.51E+02 5.12E+02 5.24E+02
worst 5.02E+02 5.91E+02 5.19E+02 6.00E+02 5.80E+02 5.39E+02 5.21E+02 5.39E+02 5.68E+02 5.54E+02 5.35E+02
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 22 of 37

Table 5. Cont.

GOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 4.00E+02 1.38E+03 4.07E+02 5.81E+02 4.26E+02 4.03E+02 4.12E+02 4.09E+02 4.05E+02 4.21E+02 4.15E+02
best 4.00E+02 8.57E+02 4.03E+02 4.80E+02 4.07E+02 4.02E+02 4.06E+02 4.09E+02 4.04E+02 4.00E+02 4.12E+02
worst 4.00E+02 1.88E+03 4.12E+02 6.99E+02 4.75E+02 4.05E+02 4.29E+02 4.10E+02 4.06E+02 4.72E+02 4.19E+02
C17- 5.98E-
F4 std 0.00E+00 4.66E+02 4.80E+00 1.14E+02 3.53E+01 1.87E+00 1.21E+01 1.26E+00 3.67E+01 3.22E+00
01
median 4.00E+02 1.38E+03 4.07E+02 5.73E+02 4.11E+02 4.04E+02 4.06E+02 4.10E+02 4.04E+02 4.06E+02 4.15E+02
rank 1 11 4 10 9 2 6 5 3 8 7
mean 5.01E+02 5.75E+02 5.13E+02 5.67E+02 5.42E+02 5.25E+02 5.13E+02 5.35E+02 5.56E+02 5.29E+02 5.29E+02

best 5.01E+02 5.60E+02 5.09E+02 5.45E+02 5.24E+02 5.11E+02 5.09E+02 5.30E+02 5.51E+02 5.12E+02 5.24E+02

C17- worst 5.02E+02 5.91E+02 5.19E+02 6.00E+02 5.80E+02 5.39E+02 5.21E+02 5.39E+02 5.68E+02 5.54E+02 5.35E+02
F5 5.27E-
std 1.81E+01 5.59E+00 2.59E+01 2.75E+01 1.27E+01 5.60E+00 4.36E+00 8.74E+00 2.06E+01 5.21E+00
01

median 5.01E+02 5.75E+02 5.13E+02 5.61E+02 5.33E+02 5.24E+02 5.12E+02 5.36E+02 5.52E+02 5.25E+02 5.28E+02

rank 1 11 2 10 8 4 3 7 9 5 6
mean 6.00E+02 6.42E+02 6.01E+02 6.26E+02 6.24E+02 6.02E+02 6.01E+02 6.07E+02 6.18E+02 6.08E+02 6.11E+02
best 6.00E+02 6.39E+02 6.01E+02 6.16E+02 6.08E+02 6.00E+02 6.01E+02 6.05E+02 6.03E+02 6.01E+02 6.07E+02
worst 6.00E+02 6.47E+02 6.02E+02 6.42E+02 6.47E+02 6.04E+02 6.02E+02 6.11E+02 6.38E+02 6.20E+02 6.15E+02
C17- 8.89E- 5.13E-
F6 std 0.00E+00 3.71E+00 1.21E+01 1.75E+01 1.91E+00 2.71E+00 1.70E+01 8.97E+00 3.72E+00
01 01
median 6.00E+02 6.42E+02 6.01E+02 6.23E+02 6.21E+02 6.02E+02 6.01E+02 6.07E+02 6.15E+02 6.05E+02 6.10E+02
rank 1 11 3 10 9 4 2 5 8 6 7
mean 7.11E+02 8.08E+02 7.25E+02 8.33E+02 7.64E+02 7.32E+02 7.27E+02 7.54E+02 7.17E+02 7.34E+02 7.38E+02

best 7.11E+02 7.94E+02 7.21E+02 7.92E+02 7.53E+02 7.17E+02 7.18E+02 7.49E+02 7.15E+02 7.26E+02 7.27E+02

C17- worst 7.12E+02 8.21E+02 7.30E+02 8.76E+02 7.95E+02 7.52E+02 7.45E+02 7.62E+02 7.21E+02 7.46E+02 7.43E+02
F7 5.44E-
std 1.34E+01 4.03E+00 3.91E+01 2.17E+01 1.53E+01 1.32E+01 6.26E+00 2.90E+00 9.45E+00 7.76E+00
01

median 7.11E+02 8.08E+02 7.25E+02 8.33E+02 7.55E+02 7.29E+02 7.22E+02 7.52E+02 7.17E+02 7.31E+02 7.41E+02

rank 1 10 3 11 9 5 4 8 2 6 7
mean 8.01E+02 8.56E+02 8.13E+02 8.50E+02 8.38E+02 8.12E+02 8.16E+02 8.39E+02 8.21E+02 8.24E+02 8.17E+02
best 8.01E+02 8.44E+02 8.09E+02 8.33E+02 8.19E+02 8.08E+02 8.11E+02 8.32E+02 8.12E+02 8.16E+02 8.13E+02
worst 8.02E+02 8.61E+02 8.15E+02 8.70E+02 8.50E+02 8.17E+02 8.22E+02 8.48E+02 8.29E+02 8.30E+02 8.26E+02
C17- 6.10E-
F8 std 8.41E+00 3.03E+00 1.75E+01 1.42E+01 4.18E+00 4.77E+00 8.43E+00 7.35E+00 7.39E+00 5.86E+00
01
median 8.01E+02 8.59E+02 8.14E+02 8.49E+02 8.41E+02 8.12E+02 8.17E+02 8.39E+02 8.21E+02 8.24E+02 8.15E+02
rank 1 11 3 10 8 2 4 9 6 7 5
mean 9.00E+02 1.49E+03 9.05E+02 1.40E+03 1.39E+03 9.01E+02 9.12E+02 9.12E+02 9.00E+02 9.04E+02 9.05E+02

best 9.00E+02 1.39E+03 9.00E+02 1.18E+03 1.08E+03 9.00E+02 9.01E+02 9.08E+02 9.00E+02 9.01E+02 9.03E+02

C17- worst 9.00E+02 1.63E+03 9.14E+02 1.70E+03 1.69E+03 9.03E+02 9.34E+02 9.21E+02 9.00E+02 9.13E+02 9.09E+02
F9 std 0.00E+00 1.10E+02 6.47E+00 2.40E+02 2.71E+02 1.70E+00 1.69E+01 6.20E+00 0.00E+00 6.03E+00 3.14E+00

median 9.00E+02 1.47E+03 9.04E+02 1.36E+03 1.41E+03 9.00E+02 9.07E+02 9.10E+02 9.00E+02 9.02E+02 9.04E+02

rank 1 10 5 9 8 2 7 6 1 3 4
mean 1.01E+03 2.63E+03 1.53E+03 2.06E+03 2.06E+03 1.80E+03 1.75E+03 2.21E+03 2.32E+03 1.97E+03 1.74E+03
best 1.00E+03 2.45E+03 1.40E+03 1.78E+03 1.46E+03 1.47E+03 1.56E+03 1.80E+03 2.03E+03 1.58E+03 1.43E+03
worst 1.01E+03 3.00E+03 1.61E+03 2.32E+03 2.60E+03 2.32E+03 2.02E+03 2.51E+03 2.43E+03 2.39E+03 2.15E+03
C17-
F10 std 7.07E+00 2.71E+02 1.04E+02 3.05E+02 5.82E+02 4.38E+02 2.11E+02 3.16E+02 2.05E+02 3.56E+02 3.27E+02
median 1.01E+03 2.53E+03 1.56E+03 2.08E+03 2.08E+03 1.71E+03 1.71E+03 2.26E+03 2.41E+03 1.96E+03 1.69E+03
rank 1 11 2 8 7 5 4 9 10 6 3
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 23 of 37

Table 5. Cont.

GOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 1.10E+03 4.07E+03 1.13E+03 5.59E+03 1.15E+03 1.13E+03 1.16E+03 1.15E+03 1.14E+03 1.14E+03 2.42E+03

best 1.10E+03 1.47E+03 1.11E+03 5.44E+03 1.11E+03 1.11E+03 1.12E+03 1.14E+03 1.12E+03 1.13E+03 1.12E+03

C17- worst 1.10E+03 6.64E+03 1.16E+03 5.67E+03 1.18E+03 1.15E+03 1.23E+03 1.17E+03 1.17E+03 1.17E+03 6.13E+03
F11 std 0.00E+00 2.47E+03 2.35E+01 1.12E+02 3.04E+01 2.37E+01 5.44E+01 1.63E+01 2.29E+01 1.61E+01 2.62E+03

median 1.10E+03 4.09E+03 1.12E+03 5.62E+03 1.16E+03 1.13E+03 1.14E+03 1.15E+03 1.14E+03 1.14E+03 1.22E+03

rank 1 10 2 11 7 3 8 6 4 5 9
mean 1.35E+03 7.28E+08 5.86E+05 1.07E+06 2.43E+06 1.06E+06 1.46E+06 5.22E+06 1.05E+06 8.31E+03 6.25E+05
best 1.32E+03 1.62E+08 2.05E+04 5.57E+05 1.77E+05 9.08E+03 4.69E+04 1.40E+06 4.90E+05 2.56E+03 1.81E+05
C17- worst 1.44E+03 1.27E+09 9.17E+05 1.32E+06 4.03E+06 3.34E+06 2.29E+06 9.24E+06 1.78E+06 1.43E+04 1.10E+06
F12 std 6.08E+01 5.97E+08 4.19E+05 3.81E+05 1.90E+06 1.63E+06 1.05E+06 4.41E+06 5.81E+05 5.69E+03 4.02E+05
median 1.33E+03 7.39E+08 7.03E+05 1.21E+06 2.76E+06 4.52E+05 1.76E+06 5.12E+06 9.71E+05 8.18E+03 6.08E+05
rank 1 11 3 7 9 6 8 10 5 2 4
mean 1.31E+03 3.55E+07 5.57E+03 1.31E+04 7.78E+03 6.91E+03 1.06E+04 1.72E+04 1.04E+04 6.79E+03 5.62E+04

best 1.30E+03 2.95E+06 3.80E+03 7.79E+03 3.35E+03 1.39E+03 6.68E+03 1.63E+04 5.17E+03 2.41E+03 8.78E+03

C17- worst 1.31E+03 1.18E+08 6.82E+03 2.08E+04 1.56E+04 1.27E+04 1.48E+04 1.96E+04 1.46E+04 1.72E+04 1.86E+05
F13 std 2.41E+00 5.84E+07 1.53E+03 5.96E+03 5.93E+03 6.24E+03 3.54E+03 1.68E+03 4.23E+03 7.46E+03 9.18E+04

median 1.30E+03 1.06E+07 5.83E+03 1.19E+04 6.09E+03 6.75E+03 1.04E+04 1.65E+04 1.08E+04 3.77E+03 1.50E+04

rank 1 11 2 8 5 4 7 9 6 3 10
mean 1.40E+03 5.48E+03 1.96E+03 3.45E+03 1.52E+03 1.58E+03 2.38E+03 1.60E+03 5.71E+03 3.05E+03 1.34E+04
best 1.40E+03 4.79E+03 1.44E+03 1.49E+03 1.48E+03 1.42E+03 1.46E+03 1.52E+03 4.71E+03 1.43E+03 3.81E+03
worst 1.40E+03 7.08E+03 2.95E+03 5.72E+03 1.56E+03 2.01E+03 5.08E+03 1.63E+03 7.76E+03 7.03E+03 2.67E+04
C17- 5.28E-
F14 std 1.14E+03 7.56E+02 2.39E+03 4.32E+01 3.09E+02 1.91E+03 5.49E+01 1.52E+03 2.84E+03 1.03E+04
01
median 1.40E+03 5.02E+03 1.72E+03 3.30E+03 1.52E+03 1.44E+03 1.48E+03 1.62E+03 5.18E+03 1.87E+03 1.15E+04
rank 1 9 5 8 2 3 6 4 10 7 11
mean 1.50E+03 1.43E+04 4.06E+03 7.19E+03 6.38E+03 1.54E+03 5.96E+03 1.72E+03 2.46E+04 9.25E+03 4.65E+03

best 1.50E+03 2.78E+03 3.28E+03 2.35E+03 2.03E+03 1.53E+03 3.64E+03 1.59E+03 1.16E+04 2.92E+03 1.90E+03

C17- worst 1.50E+03 3.13E+04 5.01E+03 1.29E+04 1.38E+04 1.56E+03 7.08E+03 1.81E+03 3.70E+04 1.52E+04 8.23E+03
F15 2.50E-
std 1.32E+04 7.60E+02 4.82E+03 5.47E+03 1.34E+01 1.68E+03 1.16E+02 1.29E+04 5.47E+03 3.34E+03
01

median 1.50E+03 1.15E+04 3.97E+03 6.74E+03 4.81E+03 1.55E+03 6.56E+03 1.73E+03 2.50E+04 9.42E+03 4.24E+03

rank 1 10 4 8 7 2 6 3 11 9 5
mean 1.60E+03 2.03E+03 1.69E+03 2.06E+03 1.96E+03 1.82E+03 1.73E+03 1.68E+03 2.09E+03 1.93E+03 1.81E+03
best 1.60E+03 1.83E+03 1.64E+03 1.87E+03 1.77E+03 1.73E+03 1.62E+03 1.65E+03 1.96E+03 1.83E+03 1.72E+03
worst 1.60E+03 2.31E+03 1.72E+03 2.25E+03 2.09E+03 1.89E+03 1.83E+03 1.74E+03 2.29E+03 2.10E+03 1.84E+03
C17- 3.35E-
F16 std 2.18E+02 3.45E+01 1.84E+02 1.64E+02 7.03E+01 9.49E+01 4.10E+01 1.60E+02 1.33E+02 6.12E+01
01
median 1.60E+03 1.99E+03 1.69E+03 2.06E+03 1.99E+03 1.84E+03 1.74E+03 1.66E+03 2.05E+03 1.90E+03 1.84E+03
rank 1 9 3 10 8 6 4 2 11 7 5
mean 1.70E+03 1.82E+03 1.74E+03 1.81E+03 1.85E+03 1.85E+03 1.77E+03 1.76E+03 1.85E+03 1.75E+03 1.76E+03

best 1.70E+03 1.80E+03 1.72E+03 1.79E+03 1.78E+03 1.78E+03 1.73E+03 1.75E+03 1.75E+03 1.75E+03 1.75E+03

C17- worst 1.70E+03 1.83E+03 1.78E+03 1.82E+03 1.90E+03 1.96E+03 1.88E+03 1.77E+03 1.98E+03 1.76E+03 1.76E+03
F17 1.65E-
std 1.28E+01 2.87E+01 1.23E+01 5.52E+01 8.94E+01 7.58E+01 1.09E+01 1.26E+02 6.26E+00 2.76E+00
01

median 1.70E+03 1.83E+03 1.72E+03 1.81E+03 1.86E+03 1.83E+03 1.74E+03 1.76E+03 1.84E+03 1.75E+03 1.76E+03

rank 1 8 2 7 9 10 6 5 11 3 4
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 24 of 37

Table 5. Cont.

GOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 1.81E+03 5.87E+06 1.13E+04 1.24E+04 2.40E+04 2.15E+04 2.05E+04 3.04E+04 9.96E+03 2.25E+04 1.32E+04
best 1.80E+03 2.91E+05 4.23E+03 7.64E+03 6.59E+03 8.92E+03 6.46E+03 2.47E+04 6.54E+03 2.91E+03 3.49E+03
worst 1.82E+03 1.71E+07 1.70E+04 1.67E+04 3.77E+04 3.47E+04 3.46E+04 3.80E+04 1.22E+04 4.19E+04 1.90E+04
C17-
F18 std 1.07E+01 8.24E+06 6.15E+03 4.02E+03 1.59E+04 1.29E+04 1.51E+04 6.50E+03 2.55E+03 2.14E+04 7.19E+03
median 1.80E+03 3.08E+06 1.21E+04 1.26E+04 2.58E+04 2.13E+04 2.04E+04 2.94E+04 1.06E+04 2.26E+04 1.51E+04
rank 1 11 3 4 9 7 6 10 2 8 5
mean 1.90E+03 7.26E+05 5.71E+03 1.29E+05 3.58E+04 1.92E+03 5.49E+03 4.78E+03 4.16E+04 2.57E+04 6.32E+03

best 1.90E+03 4.72E+04 2.33E+03 1.95E+03 7.84E+03 1.91E+03 1.95E+03 2.05E+03 1.14E+04 2.65E+03 2.22E+03

C17- worst 1.90E+03 1.56E+06 9.65E+03 2.58E+05 6.56E+04 1.93E+03 1.42E+04 1.28E+04 6.04E+04 7.92E+04 1.01E+04
F19 7.90E-
std 7.24E+05 3.96E+03 1.56E+05 2.52E+04 7.69E+00 6.21E+03 5.69E+03 2.33E+04 3.83E+04 3.46E+03
01

median 1.90E+03 6.48E+05 5.44E+03 1.29E+05 3.49E+04 1.91E+03 2.92E+03 2.13E+03 4.73E+04 1.04E+04 6.45E+03

rank 1 11 5 10 8 2 4 3 9 7 6
mean 2.00E+03 2.23E+03 2.10E+03 2.21E+03 2.21E+03 2.14E+03 2.18E+03 2.07E+03 2.26E+03 2.17E+03 2.05E+03
best 2.00E+03 2.17E+03 2.07E+03 2.11E+03 2.10E+03 2.05E+03 2.13E+03 2.06E+03 2.19E+03 2.15E+03 2.04E+03
C17- worst 2.00E+03 2.29E+03 2.13E+03 2.33E+03 2.30E+03 2.26E+03 2.25E+03 2.08E+03 2.36E+03 2.21E+03 2.06E+03
F20 std 0.00E+00 6.14E+01 2.35E+01 9.93E+01 9.92E+01 9.01E+01 5.68E+01 9.84E+00 8.47E+01 3.04E+01 1.12E+01
median 2.00E+03 2.23E+03 2.09E+03 2.21E+03 2.23E+03 2.14E+03 2.16E+03 2.07E+03 2.25E+03 2.17E+03 2.06E+03
rank 1 10 4 9 8 5 7 3 11 6 2
mean 2.20E+03 2.27E+03 2.26E+03 2.33E+03 2.31E+03 2.25E+03 2.32E+03 2.30E+03 2.37E+03 2.32E+03 2.30E+03

best 2.20E+03 2.22E+03 2.26E+03 2.22E+03 2.22E+03 2.20E+03 2.31E+03 2.20E+03 2.36E+03 2.31E+03 2.23E+03
C17- worst 2.20E+03 2.29E+03 2.26E+03 2.38E+03 2.36E+03 2.31E+03 2.32E+03 2.34E+03 2.39E+03 2.33E+03 2.34E+03
F21
std 0.00E+00 3.28E+01 2.33E+00 7.72E+01 6.76E+01 6.72E+01 4.13E+00 7.06E+01 1.59E+01 8.41E+00 5.30E+01

median 2.20E+03 2.28E+03 2.26E+03 2.36E+03 2.34E+03 2.25E+03 2.32E+03 2.33E+03 2.37E+03 2.32E+03 2.32E+03

rank 1 4 3 10 7 2 8 6 11 9 5
mean 2.30E+03 2.94E+03 2.31E+03 2.73E+03 2.32E+03 2.29E+03 2.31E+03 2.32E+03 2.30E+03 2.31E+03 2.32E+03
best 2.30E+03 2.72E+03 2.30E+03 2.45E+03 2.32E+03 2.23E+03 2.30E+03 2.31E+03 2.30E+03 2.30E+03 2.32E+03
worst 2.30E+03 3.09E+03 2.31E+03 2.94E+03 2.33E+03 2.31E+03 2.32E+03 2.33E+03 2.30E+03 2.35E+03 2.32E+03
C17- 1.54E- 5.92E-
F22 std 1.67E+02 3.89E+00 2.31E+02 6.03E+00 4.12E+01 1.07E+01 9.03E+00 2.36E+01 3.45E+00
01 03
median 2.30E+03 2.96E+03 2.31E+03 2.76E+03 2.32E+03 2.30E+03 2.31E+03 2.32E+03 2.30E+03 2.30E+03 2.32E+03
rank 3 11 4 10 9 1 5 8 2 6 7
mean 2.60E+03 2.70E+03 2.61E+03 2.73E+03 2.65E+03 2.62E+03 2.61E+03 2.64E+03 2.80E+03 2.65E+03 2.66E+03

best 2.60E+03 2.67E+03 2.61E+03 2.64E+03 2.63E+03 2.61E+03 2.61E+03 2.63E+03 2.73E+03 2.64E+03 2.64E+03
C17- worst 2.60E+03 2.75E+03 2.62E+03 2.77E+03 2.67E+03 2.63E+03 2.62E+03 2.65E+03 2.94E+03 2.66E+03 2.67E+03
F23
std 1.40E+00 3.58E+01 2.70E+00 6.62E+01 2.25E+01 1.18E+01 7.18E+00 9.79E+00 1.05E+02 9.53E+00 1.48E+01

median 2.60E+03 2.70E+03 2.61E+03 2.75E+03 2.65E+03 2.62E+03 2.61E+03 2.64E+03 2.76E+03 2.64E+03 2.66E+03

rank 1 9 3 10 7 4 2 5 11 6 8
mean 2.63E+03 2.86E+03 2.63E+03 2.67E+03 2.77E+03 2.69E+03 2.75E+03 2.76E+03 2.75E+03 2.77E+03 2.73E+03
best 2.52E+03 2.83E+03 2.62E+03 2.52E+03 2.74E+03 2.50E+03 2.73E+03 2.75E+03 2.50E+03 2.76E+03 2.53E+03
C17- worst 2.73E+03 2.92E+03 2.64E+03 2.81E+03 2.79E+03 2.76E+03 2.77E+03 2.77E+03 2.90E+03 2.79E+03 2.81E+03
F24 std 1.24E+02 4.34E+01 7.70E+00 1.68E+02 2.28E+01 1.31E+02 1.84E+01 7.73E+00 1.84E+02 1.43E+01 1.39E+02
median 2.64E+03 2.84E+03 2.63E+03 2.67E+03 2.76E+03 2.74E+03 2.75E+03 2.76E+03 2.80E+03 2.77E+03 2.78E+03
rank 1 11 2 3 9 4 7 8 6 10 5
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 25 of 37

Table 5. Cont.

GOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 2.93E+03 3.29E+03 2.92E+03 3.14E+03 2.91E+03 2.92E+03 2.94E+03 2.93E+03 2.92E+03 2.92E+03 2.95E+03

best 2.90E+03 3.22E+03 2.91E+03 2.90E+03 2.76E+03 2.90E+03 2.92E+03 2.92E+03 2.90E+03 2.90E+03 2.94E+03

C17- worst 2.95E+03 3.37E+03 2.92E+03 3.68E+03 2.96E+03 2.94E+03 2.95E+03 2.95E+03 2.94E+03 2.95E+03 2.96E+03
F25 std 2.45E+01 6.63E+01 4.38E+00 3.88E+02 1.05E+02 2.71E+01 1.31E+01 2.16E+01 2.53E+01 2.83E+01 1.08E+01

median 2.94E+03 3.28E+03 2.92E+03 2.99E+03 2.95E+03 2.92E+03 2.94E+03 2.93E+03 2.92E+03 2.92E+03 2.95E+03

rank 6 11 2 10 1 3 8 7 4 5 9
mean 2.90E+03 3.79E+03 3.02E+03 3.65E+03 3.19E+03 2.90E+03 3.28E+03 3.22E+03 3.89E+03 2.90E+03 2.90E+03
best 2.90E+03 3.45E+03 2.89E+03 3.15E+03 2.93E+03 2.90E+03 2.97E+03 2.91E+03 2.80E+03 2.80E+03 2.70E+03
C17- worst 2.90E+03 4.13E+03 3.31E+03 4.32E+03 3.62E+03 2.90E+03 3.94E+03 3.91E+03 4.40E+03 3.01E+03 3.12E+03
F26 3.94E- 3.93E-
std 3.13E+02 2.07E+02 6.04E+02 3.20E+02 4.74E+02 4.93E+02 7.84E+02 9.08E+01 2.24E+02
13 02
median 2.90E+03 3.78E+03 2.93E+03 3.56E+03 3.11E+03 2.90E+03 3.10E+03 3.02E+03 4.19E+03 2.90E+03 2.89E+03
rank 2 10 5 9 6 3 8 7 11 4 1
mean 3.09E+03 3.24E+03 3.11E+03 3.18E+03 3.20E+03 3.09E+03 3.12E+03 3.12E+03 3.23E+03 3.14E+03 3.16E+03

best 3.09E+03 3.13E+03 3.09E+03 3.10E+03 3.18E+03 3.09E+03 3.09E+03 3.10E+03 3.22E+03 3.10E+03 3.12E+03

worst 3.09E+03 3.43E+03 3.14E+03 3.23E+03 3.21E+03 3.10E+03 3.18E+03 3.17E+03 3.25E+03 3.19E+03 3.22E+03
C17-
F27 2.79E-
std 1.44E+02 2.15E+01 5.94E+01 1.27E+01 2.71E+00 4.44E+01 4.11E+01 1.65E+01 3.98E+01 4.62E+01
13

median 3.09E+03 3.19E+03 3.10E+03 3.20E+03 3.20E+03 3.09E+03 3.10E+03 3.10E+03 3.23E+03 3.13E+03 3.15E+03

rank 1 11 3 8 9 2 5 4 10 6 7
mean 3.10E+03 3.80E+03 3.22E+03 3.60E+03 3.29E+03 3.24E+03 3.35E+03 3.33E+03 3.46E+03 3.31E+03 3.25E+03
best 3.10E+03 3.72E+03 3.17E+03 3.42E+03 3.15E+03 3.10E+03 3.20E+03 3.22E+03 3.45E+03 3.18E+03 3.15E+03
C17- worst 3.10E+03 3.86E+03 3.25E+03 3.82E+03 3.40E+03 3.40E+03 3.42E+03 3.40E+03 3.48E+03 3.40E+03 3.53E+03
F28 std 0.00E+00 7.21E+01 3.88E+01 2.18E+02 1.34E+02 1.76E+02 1.11E+02 9.24E+01 1.61E+01 1.06E+02 1.96E+02
median 3.10E+03 3.81E+03 3.24E+03 3.58E+03 3.31E+03 3.24E+03 3.40E+03 3.36E+03 3.46E+03 3.33E+03 3.17E+03
rank 1 11 2 10 5 3 8 7 9 6 4
mean 3.13E+03 3.38E+03 3.21E+03 3.24E+03 3.36E+03 3.21E+03 3.27E+03 3.22E+03 3.35E+03 3.27E+03 3.24E+03

best 3.13E+03 3.31E+03 3.17E+03 3.17E+03 3.24E+03 3.14E+03 3.19E+03 3.17E+03 3.24E+03 3.17E+03 3.19E+03

C17- worst 3.13E+03 3.45E+03 3.25E+03 3.31E+03 3.51E+03 3.29E+03 3.39E+03 3.24E+03 3.65E+03 3.36E+03 3.29E+03
F29 std 2.64E+00 7.84E+01 3.79E+01 6.30E+01 1.20E+02 6.70E+01 9.89E+01 3.58E+01 2.12E+02 9.02E+01 4.52E+01

median 3.13E+03 3.39E+03 3.20E+03 3.24E+03 3.34E+03 3.19E+03 3.25E+03 3.23E+03 3.26E+03 3.28E+03 3.24E+03

rank 1 11 3 5 10 2 7 4 9 8 6
mean 3.42E+03 3.78E+06 4.27E+05 6.33E+05 1.02E+06 3.12E+05 9.63E+05 6.23E+04 8.06E+05 3.99E+05 1.57E+06
best 3.39E+03 8.52E+05 1.63E+04 1.16E+05 4.50E+03 7.56E+03 3.45E+04 3.01E+04 6.19E+05 6.48E+03 5.41E+05
C17- worst 3.44E+03 5.98E+06 6.30E+05 1.34E+06 3.86E+06 1.19E+06 1.39E+06 1.05E+05 1.03E+06 7.90E+05 3.58E+06
F30 std 2.95E+01 2.28E+06 2.96E+05 5.51E+05 2.01E+06 6.21E+05 6.78E+05 3.87E+04 1.81E+05 4.80E+05 1.52E+06
median 3.42E+03 4.15E+06 5.31E+05 5.39E+05 1.12E+05 2.53E+04 1.21E+06 5.73E+04 7.87E+05 3.99E+05 1.08E+06
rank 1 11 5 6 9 3 8 2 7 4 10
Sum rank 37 294 99 251 213 106 173 175 210 167 179
Mean rank 1.28E+00 1.01E+01 3.41E+00 8.66E+00 7.34E+00 3.66E+00 5.97E+00 6.03E+00 7.24E+00 5.76E+00 6.17E+00
Total rank 1 11 2 10 9 3 5 6 8 4 7

4.5. GOA for Real-world Applications

In this subsection, the performance of GOA in handling real-world applications is
challenged. For this purpose, GOA and competing algorithms have been implemented
on four engineering design problems named tension/compression spring (TCS) design,
welded beam (WB) design, speed reducer (SR) design, and pressure vessel (PV) design.
The mathematical model and full description of these real-world applications are provided
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 26 of 37

for TCS in [28], for WB in [28], for SR in [114,115], and for PV in [116]. The mathematical
model of these real-world applications is as follows:
• Mathematical model of TCS:
Consider X = [ x1 , x2 , x3 ] = [d, D, P].
Minimize f ( x ) = ( x3 + 2) x2 x12 .
Subject to
x23 x3
g1 ( x ) = 1 − 71,785x14
≤ 0,
2
4x2 − x1 x2 1
g2 ( x ) = + 5108x 2 − 1 ≤ 0,
12,566( x2 x13 ) 1
140.45x1
g3 ( x ) = 1 − x2 x ≤ 0,
2 3
x1 + x2
g4 ( x ) = 1.5 − 1 ≤ 0.
With
0.05 ≤ x1 ≤ 2, 0.25 ≤ x2 ≤ 1.3 and 2 ≤ x3 ≤ 15.
• Mathematical model of WB:
Consider X = [ x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ] = [h, l, t, b].
Minimize f ( x ) = 1.10471x12 x2 + 0.04811x3 x4 (14.0 + x2 ).
Subject to

g1 ( x ) = τ ( x ) − 13, 600 ≤ 0,
g2 ( x ) = σ ( x ) − 30, 000 ≤ 0,
g3 ( x ) = x1 − x4 ≤ 0,
g4 ( x ) = 0.10471x12 + 0.04811x3 x4 (14 + x2 ) − 5.0 ≤ 0,
g5 ( x ) = 0.125 − x1 ≤ 0,
g6 ( x ) = δ ( x ) − 0.25 ≤ 0,
g7 ( x ) = 6000 − pc ( x ) ≤ 0,

where q
x2
τ ( x ) = τ 0 + (2ττ 0 ) 2R + (τ 00 )2 ,
0
τ = √ 6000
,
2x1 x2
τ 00 = MR
J ,
6000 14 + x22 ,


M =r
2
x22

x1 + x3
R= + ,
4 2
√ x 2  x + x 2

J = 2 x1 x2 2 122 + 1 2 3 ,
504,000
σ( x) = x4 x32
65,856,000
δ (x) = ,
(30•106 ) x4 x33 r
x32 x6
4.013(30•106 ) 36
4 
x3
q
30•106

pc ( x ) = 196 1− 28 4(12•106 )
.

With
0.1 ≤ x1 , x4 ≤ 2 and 0.1 ≤ x2 , x3 ≤ 10.
• Mathematical model of SR:
Consider X = [ x1, x2 , x3 , x4 , x5 , x6 , x7 ] = [b, m, p, l1 , l2 , d1 ,
d2 ].
Minimize f ( x
) = 0.7854x1 x22 3.3333x
32 + 14.9334x3 − 43.0934 − 1.508x1 x62 + x72 +

7.4777 x63 + x73 + 0.7854 x4 x62 + x5 x72 .

Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 27 of 37

Subject to
27
g1 ( x ) = x1 x22 x3
−1 ≤ 0,
397.5
g2 ( x ) = x1 x22 x3
−1 ≤ 0,
1.93x43
g3 ( x ) = x2 x3 x64
−1 ≤ 0,
1.93x53
g4 ( x ) = x2 x3 xr4 −1 ≤ 0,
7
 2
1 745x4
g5 ( x ) = 110x63r x2 x3 + 16.9 × 106 − 1 ≤ 0,
 2
1 745x5
g6 ( x ) = 85x7 3 x2 x3 + 157.5 × 106 − 1 ≤ 0,
g7 ( x ) = x40
2 x3
− 1 ≤ 0,
5x2
g8 ( x ) = x − 1 ≤ 0,
1
x1
g9 ( x ) = 12x 2
− 1 ≤ 0,
g10 ( x ) = 1.5xx6 +1.9 − 1 ≤ 0,
4
g11 ( x ) = 1.1xx75+1.9 − 1 ≤ 0.
With

2.6 ≤ x1 ≤ 3.6, 0.7 ≤ x2 ≤ 0.8, 17 ≤ x3 ≤ 28, 7.3 ≤ x4 ≤ 8.3, 7.8 ≤ x5

≤ 8.3, 2.9 ≤ x6 ≤ 3.9, and 5 ≤ x7 ≤ 5.5 .

• Mathematical model of PV:

Consider X = [ x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ] = [ Ts , Th , R, L].
Minimize f ( x ) = 0.6224x1 x3 x4 + 1.778x2 x32 + 3.1661x12 x4 + 19.84x12 x3 .
Subject to
g1 ( x ) = − x1 + 0.0193x3 ≤ 0,
g2 ( x ) = − x2 + 0.00954x3 ≤ 0,
g3 ( x ) = −πx32 x4 − 43 πx33 + 1, 296, 000 ≤ 0,
g4 ( x ) = x4 − 240 ≤ 0.
With
0 ≤ x1 , x2 ≤ 100, and 10 ≤ x3 , x4 ≤ 200.
The optimization results of these engineering challenges are reported in Table 6. The
boxplot diagrams obtained from the performance of metaheuristic algorithms are drawn in
Figure 5. The analysis of the optimization results shows that the proposed GOA approach
has provided the optimal design for the TCS problem with the corresponding objective
function value equal to 0.012665. In dealing with the WB problem, the proposed GOA
approach has provided the optimal design with the corresponding objective function value
equal to 1.724852. GOA has provided the optimal design for the SR problem with the
corresponding objective function value equal to 2996.348. In dealing with the PV problem,
the proposed GOA approach with the corresponding objective function value equal to
5882.901 has provided the optimal design. The analysis of optimization results shows that
GOA is effective in dealing with real-world applications, and compared to competitor
algorithms, it has provided superior performance by providing better results.
 Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 26 of 35

Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 28 of 37 to

shows that GOA is effective in dealing with real-world applications, and compared
competitor algorithms, it has provided superior performance by providing better results.

Figure 5. Boxplot
Figure diagrams
5. Boxplot of metaheuristic
diagrams algorithms
of metaheuristic on real-world
algorithms applications.
on real-world applications.

Table 6. Evaluation
Table results
6. Evaluation of real-world
results applications.
of real-world applications.

DP DP GOA GOA RSARSA MPAMPA TSA TSAWOAWOAMVOMVO GWOGWO TLBOTLBO GSA GSAPSO PSO GA GA
mean mean0.012602
0.012602 0.013292
0.013292 0.012677
0.012677 0.012992
0.012992 0.01332
0.01332 0.016708
0.016708 0.012738
0.012738 0.018401
0.018401 0.019829
0.019829 2.21E+13
2.21E+13 1.73E+12
1.73E+12
best 0.012602 0.013206 0.012677 0.012695 0.012683 0.012768 0.012683 0.017838 0.013115 0.017729 0.01826
best 0.012602 0.013206 0.012677 0.012695 0.012683 0.012768 0.012683 0.017838 0.013115 0.017729 0.01826
worst 0.012602 0.013444 0.012677 0.013588 0.014618 0.018229 0.012975 0.019043 0.033208 3.93E+14 1.79E+13
TCS
worststd 0.012602 0.013444
7.63E-18 0.012677
8.14E-05 0.013588
3.34E-09 0.014618
0.000283 0.018229
0.000709 0.012975
0.001933 0.019043
6.49E-05 0.033208
0.00042 3.93E+14
0.004999 1.79E+13
9.75E+13 5.73E+12
TCS median 0.012602 0.01327 0.012677 0.012914 0.01311 0.017677 0.012736 0.018354 0.019378 0.017729 0.026318
7.63E- 8.14E- 3.34E- 6.49E-
std rank 0.0002834 0.0007096 0.0019337 3 0.00042 80.004999 99.75E+13 115.73E+1210
18 1 05 5 09 2 05
mean 1.72468 2.216423 1.726575 1.746197 2.354864 1.744131 1.729149 3.57E+13 2.497481 4.92E+13 1.21E+13
median best 0.012602 0.01327
1.72468 0.012677
1.995372 0.012914
1.726575 0.01311
1.73622 0.017677
1.830046 0.012736
1.730342 0.018354
1.727295 0.019378
3.119519 0.017729
2.112272 0.026318
4.191127 2.837774
rankworst 11.72468 52.589229 21.726575 4 1.756055 6 4.215966 7 1.780406 3 1.733486 8 3.44E+14 9 2.82840111 2.98E+14 10 1.31E+14
WB
meanstd 1.724682.53E-16 0.171437
2.216423 3.99E-09
1.726575 0.006667
1.746197 0.76323
2.354864 0.016362
1.744131 0.001621
1.729149 9.65E+13
3.57E+13 0.227781
2.497481 1.04E+14
4.92E+13 4.11E+13
1.21E+13
median
best 1.72468
1.72468 2.189572
1.995372 1.726575
1.726575 1.736221.7463 2.113632
1.830046 1.739766
1.730342 1.728886
1.727295 5.980438
3.119519 2.529163
2.112272 7.094138
4.191127 5.944616
2.837774
rank 1 6 2 5 7 4 3 10 8 11 9
worst 1.72468 2.589229 1.726575 1.756055 4.215966 1.780406 1.733486 3.44E+14 2.828401 2.98E+14 1.31E+14
mean 2996.348 3300.259 2999.345 3037.742 3164.274 3035.264 3008.222 7.46E+13 3491.113 1.1E+14 5.3E+13
WB 2.53E- 3.99E-
std best 0.171437
2996.348 0.006667
3199.444 092999.345 0.76323
3018.152 0.016362
3044.306 0.001621
3012.098 9.65E+13
3004.887 0.227781
5439.3 1.04E+14
3185.38 4.11E+13
3327.892 3375.447
16
worst 2996.348 3362.826 2999.345 3052.476 3480.881 3078.566 3014.622 5.4E+14 4157.493 5.58E+14 3.42E+14
SRmedian 1.72468 2.189572 1.726575 1.7463 2.113632 1.739766 1.728886 5.980438 2.529163 7.094138 5.944616
std 1.03E-12 68.44571 3.79E-06 12.06662 126.4984 15.77681 2.983754 1.38E+14 312.033 1.48E+14 9.26E+13
rankmedian 12996.348 63316.223 22999.345 53039.661 7 3128.502 4 3035.7363 3007.66610 2.92E+138 3351.996 11 7.88E+13 9 2.12E+13
meanrank 2996.348 1 3300.259 7 2999.345 2 3037.742 5 3164.274 6 3035.264 4 3008.222 3 7.46E+13 103491.113 81.1E+14 115.3E+13 9
bestmean2996.348
5882.895 13,838.04
3199.444 5888.784
2999.345 6361.634
3018.152 8465.669
3044.306 6662.434
3012.098 6046.469
3004.887 33,159.47
5439.3 23,866.74
3185.38 34,881.96
3327.892 29,693.68
3375.447
best 5882.895 8174.803 5888.784 5921.028 6361.305 6036.095 5897.686 11,886.59 13,320.2 10,901.6 12,024.12
worst 2996.348 3362.826 2999.345 3052.476 3480.881 3078.566 3014.622 5.4E+14 4157.493 5.58E+14 3.42E+14
worst 5882.895 23,072.84 5888.784 7186.495 14,320.11 7310.76 6848.651 72,180.9 37,826.84 60,489.28 54,178.55
SR PV
std 1.03E-
2.07E-12 4223.963.79E- 4.97E-06 450.0219 2271.864 432.6787 323.3558 18,634.81 9065.95 17,445.68 14,627.29
std 68.44571 12.06662 126.4984 15.77681 2.983754 1.38E+14 312.033 1.48E+14 9.26E+13
12 06
median 5882.895 12,612.46 5888.784 6206.324 7955.339 6728.311 5907.843 29,142.83 22,876.3 38,562.36 26,190.2
medianrank 2996.348 1 3316.2237 2999.3452 3039.6614 3128.5026 3035.7365 3007.666 3 2.92E+13103351.996 87.88E+13 112.12E+13 9
Sum rank 4 25 8 18 25 20 12 38 33 44 37
rankrank 1 1
Mean 7 6.25 2 2 5 4.5 6 6.25 4 5 3 3 10 9.5 8 8.25 11 11 9 9.25
mean
Total ranking5882.8951 13,838.04 6 5888.7842 6361.6344 8465.6696 6662.4345 6046.469 3 33,159.47 923,866.74 734,881.96 1029,693.68 8
best 5882.895 8174.803 5888.784 5921.028 6361.305 6036.095 5897.686 11,886.59 13,320.2 10,901.6 12,024.12
worst 5882.895 23,072.844.6. Statistical
5888.784 Analysis
7186.495 14,320.11 7310.76 6848.651 72,180.9 37,826.84 60,489.28 54,178.55
PV 2.07E- 4.97E-
In this450.0219
subsection, statistical analysis was used to check whether or not14,627.29
the superior-
std 4223.96 2271.864 432.6787 323.3558 18,634.81 9065.95 17,445.68
12 06 the proposed GOA approach compared to competing algorithms is significant from
ity of
median 5882.895 12,612.46a 5888.784
statistical6206.324
point of7955.339
view. To6728.311 5907.843
answer this 29,142.83
question, 22,876.3 38,562.36
the Wilcoxon 26,190.2
rank sum test [117] was
rank 1 7 employed,
2 which
4 is a non-parametric
6 5 test
3 and is used
10 to determine
8 the significant
11 9 differ-
Sum rank 4 25 ence 8 between 18 the average
25 of two
20 data samples.
12 In
38 this test,
33 using the
44 p-value index,
37 it is
Mean rank 1 6.25 determined
2 whether
4.5 or not there
6.25 5 is a significant
3 difference
9.5 8.25between11 the performance
9.25 of
Total ranking 1 6 the two
2 algorithms.
4 6 5 3 9 7 10 8
The results of implementing the Wilcoxon rank sum test on the performance of the
GOA and competitor algorithms are reported in Table 7. Based on the results, in cases
4.6. Statistical Analysis
In this subsection, statistical analysis was used to check whether or not the superiority
of the proposed GOA approach compared to competing algorithms is significant from
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 29 of 37

a statistical point of view. To answer this question, the Wilcoxon rank sum test [117]
was employed, which is a non-parametric test and is used to determine the significant
difference between the average of two data samples. In this test, using the p-value index, it
is determined whether or not there is a significant difference between the performance of
the two algorithms.
The results of implementing the Wilcoxon rank sum test on the performance of the
GOA and competitor algorithms are reported in Table 7. Based on the results, in cases
where the p-value is less than 0.05, the proposed GOA approach has a significant statistical
superiority in comparison with the corresponding competitor algorithm. Therefore, it
is evident that GOA has significant statistically superior performance in handling all
benchmarks and engineering problems compared to competitor algorithms.

Table 7. Wilcoxon rank sum test results.

Compared Objective Function Type

Algorithm F1 to F7 F8 to F13 F14 to F23 CEC 2017 Engineering Problems
GOA vs. RSA 3.6E-21 1.97E-21 1.97E-21 1.97E-21 2.79E-07
GOA vs. MPA 2.43E-05 4.35E-10 1.49E-11 3.34E-15 6.24E-06
GOA vs. TSA 7.23E-21 1.97E-21 1.97E-21 1.97E-21 1.37E-07
GOA vs. WOA 9.04E-21 1.97E-21 1.97E-21 1.97E-21 1.84E-07
GOA vs. MVO 8.04E-17 5.13E-19 5.68E-20 6.41E-20 4.64E-07
GOA vs. GWO 1.44E-18 9.98E-21 5.64E-21 9.5E-21 1.49E-06
GOA vs. TLBO 7.06E-20 1.97E-21 1.97E-21 1.97E-21 2.28E-07
GOA vs. GSA 3.02E-20 2.87E-21 1.97E-21 1.97E-21 3.57E-08
GOA vs. PSO 6.25E-20 9.98E-21 1.72E-20 2.24E-21 7.06E-07
GOA vs. GA 3.09E-20 1.97E-21 2.02E-21 1.97E-21 1.59E-07

4.7. Discussion
Metaheuristic algorithms are stochastic techniques that are able to achieve suitable
solutions for optimization problems based on a random search in the problem-solving
space in an iterative-based process. There are three important principles in the optimization
process using metaheuristic algorithms: exploration, exploitation, and balancing during
the search process.
Because unimodal functions do not have any local optimum, they are suitable options
for evaluating the exploitation power of metaheuristic algorithms in a local search and
converging towards the global optimum. Functions F1 to F7, as well as C17-F1 and C17-F3
from the CEC 2017 test suite, are unimodal functions. Based on the simulation results, GOA
has been able to exactly converge to the global optimum in the optimization of functions F1,
F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, C17-F1, and C17-F3 with high ability in exploitation and provide powerful
local search. Also, in solving the F7 function, GOA is the first best optimizer compared
to competing algorithms. Based on the simulation results, it is evident that the proposed
GOA approach has a high power in exploitation in order to manage an effective local
search in the problem-solving space. Overall, GOA has provided superior performance in
the optimization of unimodal functions by obtaining the rank of the first best optimizer
compared to competing algorithms. In addition, the statistical analysis shows that the
superiority of the proposed GOA approach in handling unimodal benchmark functions
compared to competing algorithms is significant from a statistical point of view.
High-dimensional multimodal functions have several local optima in the search space
in addition to global optima. This feature makes it a challenge for metaheuristic algorithms
to achieve the main global optimum among local extrema. High-dimensional multimodal
functions are suitable options in order to evaluate the exploration power of metaheuristic
algorithms in providing the global search of the problem-solving space with the aim of dis-
covering the area containing the global optimum. In this regard, with the aim of measuring
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 30 of 37

the exploration power of the GOA and competing metaheuristic algorithms, functions F8 to
F13 and C17-F4 to C17-F10 have been selected from the high-dimensional multimodal type.
Based on the simulation results, GOA has been able to exactly achieve the global optimum
in solving functions F9, F11, C17-F4, C17-F6, and C17-F9, with high power in exploration
and global search. Also, in solving functions F8, F10, F12, F13, C17-F5, C17-F7, C17-F8, and
C17-F10, the proposed GOA approach is the first best optimizer. What can be concluded
from the simulation results is that the proposed GOA approach has a high power in explo-
ration and global search and is able to identify the area containing the main optimum in
the problem-solving space. In general, GOA has provided superior performance compared
to competing algorithms by providing better results in most high-dimensional multimodal
functions and obtaining the rank of the first best optimizer. Statistical analysis also shows
that GOA has a significant statistical superiority in solving high-dimensional multimodal
functions compared to competing algorithms.
Fixed-dimensional multimodal functions have fewer local optima compared to high-
dimensional multimodal functions. These functions are suitable options in order to evaluate
the ability of metaheuristic algorithms in balancing exploration and exploitation during
the search process. For this purpose, the functions F14 to F23 have been selected from
the fixed-dimensional multimodal functions. Also, the functions C17-F11 to C17-F30 are
complex optimization problems that challenge the ability of metaheuristic algorithms to
establish a balance between exploration and exploitation. Based on the simulation results,
GOA with high ability in balancing exploration and exploitation has been able to identify
the region containing the main optimum and converge towards solutions close to the
global optimum. The comparison of the simulation results shows that GOA is the first best
optimizer for functions F14 to F23, C17-F11 to C17-F21, C17-F23, C17-F24, and C17-F27 to
C17-F30 compared to competing algorithms. What is evident from the simulation results
is the GOA has provided superior performance in solving these functions with a better
ability to balance exploration and exploitation compared to competing algorithms. Citing
the results of statistical analysis also shows that GOA has a significant statistical superiority
against competing metaheuristic algorithms.
One of the most important applications of metaheuristic algorithms is their employ-
ment in handling real-world applications. In fact, it should be checked whether or not
the use of metaheuristic algorithms in optimizing real-world applications can be fruitful.
In this regard, four engineering design problems have been selected from real-world ap-
plications. The optimization results show that GOA has provided superior performance
compared to competing algorithms by providing optimal design for all four engineer-
ing problems. Analysis of the optimization results shows that GOA has an effective and
acceptable performance in handling real-world applications.

5. Energy Commitment Problem and Resilience

In this section, to evaluate the performance of the proposed approach in real-world
applications, GOA’s ability to address the engineering problem of the operation of energy
carriers with respect to energy network resilience is challenged.

5.1. Case Study

The operation of energy carriers using the proposed GOA approach is studied on
an energy network with twenty-six power plant units. The complete information of this
network, the mathematical formulation, and the objective function of this problem are
provided in reference [118]. The main goal of this optimization problem is to reduce the cost
of energy carriers’ operation in order to meet the energy demand. The objective function
and constraints of the energy commitment problem are as follows:
n h io
T N N N
Fobjective = min ∑t=1 ∑i=c1 carrierit × pricei + ∑i=g1 SCit + ∑i=g1 Ci uit (11)
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 31 of 37

SCi , uit > uit−1


SCit = (12)
0, else

Pgmin
i
≤ Pgi ≤ Pgmax
i
(13)

N
∑i=g1 Pgt i = loadt (14)
Here, Fobjective is the objective function of the EC problem, T is the study period, Nc is
the number of various carriers, carrierit is the need of i-th carrier in the t-th hour and pricei
is its price, Ng is the number of units, SCit is the start-up cost for the i-th unit in the t-th
hour, Ci is the fixed cost for the i-th unit, uit is the status (on or off) of it in the t-th hour, Pgi
is the production of the i-th unit and loadt is the electricity demand in the t-th hour.
This study is carried out in two normal and abnormal situations, where one of the
power plants is out of the network based on natural events, and the resilience of the network
against this event should be analyzed.

5.2. Operation of the Energy Network in Normal Mode

The implementation results of the GOA and competitor algorithms on the mentioned
problem are presented in Table 8. Simulation results show that GOA has good performance
in optimizing the operation of energy carriers’ problem, and compared to competitor
algorithms, it is the first best optimizer for this problem.

Table 8. Results for GOA and competitor algorithms in EC problem (normal mode).

Algorithm Mean (Dollar) Best (Dollar) Worst (Dollar) Std (Dollar) Median (Dollar) Rank
GOA 2.1148E07 2.1056E07 2.1297E07 7.5142E01 2.1137E07 1
GA 8.5146E08 8.4236E08 8.5891E08 2.6145E06 8.4809E08 11
PSO 5.2158E08 5.0369E08 5.2621E08 1.2485E06 5.1262E08 10
GSA 6.7624E07 6.4512E07 6.8002E07 5.2176E04 6.4849E07 9
TLBO 3.2648E07 3.0914E07 3.2861E07 7.5423E03 3.1562E07 8
GWO 2.7592E07 2.5627E07 2.7806E07 8.6427E02 2.6208E07 7
MVO 2.4257E07 2.1045E07 2.4614E07 6.5654E02 2.2162E07 6
WOA 2.1739E07 2.1296E07 2.2146E07 2.7865E02 2.1428E07 3
MPA 2.2365E07 2.1624E07 2.2948E07 1.4552E02 2.2061E07 5
TSA 2.1562E07 2.1204E07 2.1854E07 1.6254E02 2.1454E07 2
RSA 2.1851E07 2.1425E07 2.2004E07 1.1986E02 2.1619E07 4

5.3. Operation of the Energy Network in Abnormal Mode Considering Resilience

In the subsequent investigation, a hypothetical scenario is postulated where, driven
by the impact of natural calamities, a critical event unfolds during the network’s opera-
tion. Specifically, in the 20th hour of the designated study period, the 12th power plant
encounters a catastrophic incident, resulting in the incapacitation of its capacity to generate
electrical energy. Consequently, this predicament necessitates a meticulous assessment of
the energy network’s resilience. The overarching objective revolves around ascertaining
whether the network’s operational integrity would falter under these exigent circumstances
or if it would successfully sustain the provisioning of requisite energy.
The outcomes stemming from the implementation of the Golf Optimization Algorithm
(GOA) and its competitor algorithms within the context of this accident-induced adversity
are comprehensively delineated in Table 9. The ascertained results manifestly underscore
GOA’s prominence as the preeminent optimizer in navigating the intricate labyrinth of
the energy commitment quandary, especially when contrasted against its algorithmic
counterparts. Delving into the intricacies of the simulation findings for both normal
and abnormal operational paradigms reveal a conspicuous trend: the introduction of the
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 32 of 37

catastrophic incident, while increasing the operational expenditure of the network, does
not undermine its overarching resilience. In essence, the network steadfastly maintains its
capacity to withstand and endure the disruptive influence of the natural disaster, thereby
affirming its steadfast resilience.

Table 9. Results for GOA and competitor algorithms in EC problem (abnormal mode).

Algorithm Mean (Dollar) Best (Dollar) Worst (Dollar) Std (Dollar) Median (Dollar) Rank
GOA 2.34E+07 2.28E+07 2.55E+07 8.24E+01 2.29E+07 1
GA 9.79E+08 9.48E+08 9.94E+08 2.94E+06 9.60E+08 11
PSO 6.41E+08 6.10E+08 6.58E+08 1.34E+06 6.31E+08 10
GSA 8.59E+07 8.49E+07 8.71E+07 5.89E+04 8.55E+07 9
TLBO 4.27E+07 4.10E+07 4.48E+07 7.99E+03 4.25E+07 8
GWO 3.24E+07 3.00E+07 3.28E+07 9.37E+02 3.19E+07 7
MVO 3.21E+07 3.05E+07 3.34E+07 6.96E+02 3.18E+07 6
WOA 2.78E+07 2.73E+07 2.84E+07 2.97E+02 2.76E+07 5
MPA 2.66E+07 2.59E+07 2.69E+07 1.66E+02 2.64E+07 3
TSA 2.68E+07 2.64E+07 2.70E+07 1.83E+02 2.65E+07 4
RSA 2.46E+07 2.37E+07 2.58E+07 1.30E+02 2.40E+07 2

6. Conclusions and Future Works

This research paper introduced a novel game-based metaheuristic algorithm named
the Golf Optimization Algorithm (GOA). The conceptual foundation of the GOA stems
from an emulation of the regulations governing the game of golf, coupled with strategic
considerations reflective of players’ tactics within the game. The procedural intricacies of
the GOA were elaborated upon, followed by a mathematical representation demarcating its
dual-phase operation: an exploratory phase dedicated to global search and an exploitative
phase tailored for local search. The evaluative prowess of the GOA in tackling optimization
quandaries was scrutinized across a comprehensive spectrum encompassing fifty-two
standard benchmark functions, spanning both unimodal and multimodal typologies, as
well as the CEC 2017 test suite. Evidential from optimization outcomes is GOA’s adeptness
in concurrently preserving a symbiotic equilibrium between explorative and exploitative
pursuits, resulting in the identification of primary optima and efficient global convergence.
In comparative light, this study juxtaposed GOA’s performance against ten preeminent
metaheuristic counterparts, divulging GOA’s superior and markedly competitive standing.
Furthermore, the practical applicability of the GOA was demonstrated through its adept
navigation of four real-world engineering design challenges. In particular, its deployment
in optimizing energy carrier operations vis-à-vis grid resilience substantiates GOA’s efficacy
in confronting real-world scenarios.
GOA accrues various merits, especially its parsimonious parameterization necessitat-
ing only two common parameters, N (population size) and T (maximum iteration count).
This attribute precludes the need for a meticulous parameter tuning procedure. The algo-
rithm’s approachability, facile implementation, and underlying conceptual clarity serve
as supplementary advantageous attributes. The ability of the GOA to strike a judicious
harmony between exploratory and exploitative tendencies during the search process in
problem solution spaces underscores another commendable facet.
However, it is imperative to acknowledge GOA’s inherent limitations. As a member
of the stochastic algorithm category, it remains susceptible to the absence of a deterministic
guarantee in achieving global optimality, constituting an inherent drawback. Additionally,
adhering to the No Free Lunch (NFL) theorem, the algorithm does not assert universal
optimality across all conceivable optimization contexts, thereby engendering a constraint
on its overall applicability. The landscape of ongoing research prospects is rich, and it
encompasses the envisagement of binary and multi-objective adaptations of the GOA.
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 33 of 37

Furthermore, the algorithm’s deployment across diverse scientific domains and real-world
applications beckons as a fertile avenue for prospective exploration.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Z.M. and T.N.; data curation, O.P.M. and J.A.; formal
analysis, M.D., Z.M. and G.D.; investigation, J.A., and O.P.M.; methodology, Z.M., O.P.M. and T.N.;
project administration, J.A. and M.D.; supervision, T.N.; software, Z.M., M.D. and G.D.; validation,
T.N., O.P.M. and J.A.; visualization, M.D. and G.D.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.M., T.N.
and M.D.; writing—review and editing, O.P.M., J.A. and G.D. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: “Professor O.P. Malik” (the fourth author) has paid APC from his NSERC, Canada, research
grant.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: Financial support of NSERC Canada through a research grant is acknowledged.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Kvasov, D.E.; Mukhametzhanov, M.S. Metaheuristic vs. deterministic global optimization algorithms: The univariate case. Appl.
Math. Comput. 2018, 318, 245–259. [CrossRef]
2. Tanyildizi, E.; Demir, G. Golden Sine Algorithm: A Novel Math-Inspired Algorithm. Adv. Electr. Comput. Eng. 2017, 17, 71–78.
[CrossRef]
3. Iba, K. Reactive power optimization by genetic algorithm. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 1994, 9, 685–692. [CrossRef]
4. Praveena, H.D.; Srilakshmi, V.; Rajini, S.; Kolluri, R.; Manohar, M. Balancing module in evolutionary optimization and Deep
Reinforcement Learning for multi-path selection in Software Defined Networks. Phys. Commun. 2023, 56, 101956. [CrossRef]
5. Hashim, F.A.; Hussien, A.G. Snake Optimizer: A novel meta-heuristic optimization algorithm. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2022, 242,
108320. [CrossRef]
6. Schmid, F.; Behrendt, F. Genetic sizing optimization of residential multi-carrier energy systems: The aim of energy autarky and its
cost. Energy 2023, 262, 125421. [CrossRef]
7. Jasinski, M.; Najafi, A.; Homaee, O.; Kermani, M.; Tsaousoglou, G.; Leonowicz, Z.; Novak, T. Operation and Planning of Energy
Hubs Under Uncertainty—A Review of Mathematical Optimization Approaches. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 7208–7228. [CrossRef]
8. Premkumar, M.; Sowmya, R.; Jangir, P.; Nisar, K.S.; Aldhaifallah, M. A New Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms for Brushless
Direct Current Wheel Motor Design Problem. CMC-Comput. Mater. Contin. 2021, 67, 2227–2242. [CrossRef]
9. Ali, E.; Abd Elazim, S.M.; Balobaid, A. Implementation of coyote optimization algorithm for solving unit commitment problem in
power systems. Energy 2023, 263, 125697. [CrossRef]
10. Aguila-Leon, J.; Vargas-Salgado, C.; Chiñas-Palacios, C.; Díaz-Bello, D. Solar photovoltaic Maximum Power Point Tracking
controller optimization using Grey Wolf Optimizer: A performance comparison between bio-inspired and traditional algorithms.
Expert Syst. Appl. 2023, 211, 118700. [CrossRef]
11. Li, M.-W.; Xu, D.-Y.; Geng, J.; Hong, W.-C. A hybrid approach for forecasting ship motion using CNN–GRU–AM and GCWOA.
Appl. Soft Comput. 2022, 114, 108084. [CrossRef]
12. Rezk, H.; Fathy, A.; Aly, M.; Ibrahim, M.N.F. Energy Management Control Strategy for Renewable Energy System Based on
Spotted Hyena Optimizer. Comput. Mater. Contin. 2021, 67, 2271–2281. [CrossRef]
13. Nutakki, M.; Mandava, S. Review on optimization techniques and role of Artificial Intelligence in home energy management
systems. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2023, 119, 105721. [CrossRef]
14. Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, C.; Zhou, J.; Hu, D.; Yi, F.; Fan, Z.; Zeng, T. Genetic algorithm-based fuzzy optimization of energy
management strategy for fuel cell vehicles considering driving cycles recognition. Energy 2023, 263, 126112. [CrossRef]
15. Dehghani, M.; Mardaneh, M.; Guerrero, J.M.; Malik, O.; Kumar, V. Football Game Based Optimization: An Application to Solve
Energy Commitment Problem. Int. J. Intell. Eng. Syst. 2020, 13, 514–523. [CrossRef]
16. Wang, Y.; Chen, C.; Wang, J.; Baldick, R. Research on Resilience of Power Systems Under Natural Disasters—A Review. IEEE
Trans. Power Syst. 2015, 31, 1604–1613. [CrossRef]
17. Dehghani, M.; Montazeri, Z.; Malik, O.P. Energy Commitment: A Planning of Energy Carrier Based on Energy Consumption.
Electr. Eng. Electromech. 2019, 69–72. [CrossRef]
18. Wolpert, D.H.; Macready, W.G. No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 1997, 1, 67–82. [CrossRef]
19. Alatas, B. Sports inspired computational intelligence algorithms for global optimization. Artif. Intell. Rev. 2019, 52, 1579–1627.
[CrossRef]
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 34 of 37

20. Kennedy, J.; Eberhart, R. Particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of the ICNN’95—International Conference on Neural
Networks, Perth, WA, Australia, 27 November–1 December 1995; IEEE: Perth, WA, Australia, 1995; Volume 4, pp. 1942–1948.
21. Dorigo, M.; Maniezzo, V.; Colorni, A. Ant system: Optimization by a colony of cooperating agents. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.
Part B Cybern. 1996, 26, 29–41. [CrossRef]
22. Karaboga, D.; Basturk, B. A powerful and efficient algorithm for numerical function optimization: Artificial bee colony (ABC)
algorithm. J. Glob. Optim. 2007, 39, 459–471. [CrossRef]
23. Yang, X.-S. Firefly algorithm, Levy flights and global optimization. In Research and Development in Intelligent Systems XXVI;
Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 209–218.
24. Dehghani, M.; Montazeri, Z.; Trojovská, E.; Trojovský, P. Coati Optimization Algorithm: A new bio-inspired metaheuristic
algorithm for solving optimization problems. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2023, 259, 110011. [CrossRef]
25. Dehghani, M.; Trojovský, P.; Malik, O.P. Green Anaconda Optimization: A New Bio-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithm for Solving
Optimization Problems. Biomimetics 2023, 8, 121. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Dehghani, M.; Hubálovský, Š.; Trojovský, P. Cat and Mouse Based Optimizer: A New Nature-Inspired Optimization Algorithm.
Sensors 2021, 21, 5214. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Mirjalili, S.; Mirjalili, S.M.; Lewis, A. Grey Wolf Optimizer. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2014, 69, 46–61. [CrossRef]
28. Mirjalili, S.; Lewis, A. The whale optimization algorithm. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2016, 95, 51–67. [CrossRef]
29. Abdollahzadeh, B.; Gharehchopogh, F.S.; Mirjalili, S. African vultures optimization algorithm: A new nature-inspired metaheuris-
tic algorithm for global optimization problems. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2021, 158, 107408. [CrossRef]
30. Faramarzi, A.; Heidarinejad, M.; Mirjalili, S.; Gandomi, A.H. Marine Predators Algorithm: A nature-inspired metaheuristic.
Expert Syst. Appl. 2020, 152, 113377. [CrossRef]
31. Abualigah, L.; Abd Elaziz, M.; Sumari, P.; Geem, Z.W.; Gandomi, A.H. Reptile Search Algorithm (RSA): A nature-inspired
meta-heuristic optimizer. Expert Syst. Appl. 2022, 191, 116158. [CrossRef]
32. Kaur, S.; Awasthi, L.K.; Sangal, A.L.; Dhiman, G. Tunicate Swarm Algorithm: A new bio-inspired based metaheuristic paradigm
for global optimization. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2020, 90, 103541. [CrossRef]
33. Jiang, Y.; Wu, Q.; Zhu, S.; Zhang, L. Orca predation algorithm: A novel bio-inspired algorithm for global optimization problems.
Expert Syst. Appl. 2022, 188, 116026. [CrossRef]
34. Braik, M.; Hammouri, A.; Atwan, J.; Al-Betar, M.A.; Awadallah, M.A. White Shark Optimizer: A novel bio-inspired meta-heuristic
algorithm for global optimization problems. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2022, 243, 108457. [CrossRef]
35. Trojovský, P.; Dehghani, M. Pelican Optimization Algorithm: A Novel Nature-Inspired Algorithm for Engineering Applications.
Sensors 2022, 22, 855. [CrossRef]
36. Dehghani, M.; Trojovský, P. Serval Optimization Algorithm: A New Bio-Inspired Approach for Solving Optimization Problems.
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 204. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Połap, D.; Woźniak, M. Red fox optimization algorithm. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 166, 114107. [CrossRef]
38. Goldberg, D.E.; Holland, J.H. Genetic Algorithms and Machine Learning. Mach. Learn. 1988, 3, 95–99. [CrossRef]
39. Storn, R.; Price, K. Differential evolution—A simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J. Glob.
Optim. 1997, 11, 341–359. [CrossRef]
40. Fogel, L.J.; Owens, A.J.; Walsh, M.J. Artificial Intelligence through Simulated Evolution; Wiley-IEEE Press: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1966.
41. Koza, J.R.; Koza, J.R. Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection; MIT Press: Cambridge,
MA, USA, 1992; Volume 1.
42. Hofmeyr, S.A.; Forrest, S. Architecture for an Artificial Immune System. Evol. Comput. 2000, 8, 443–473. [CrossRef]
43. Kirkpatrick, S.; Gelatt, C.D.; Vecchi, M.P. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 1983, 220, 671–680. [CrossRef]
44. Rashedi, E.; Nezamabadi-Pour, H.; Saryazdi, S. GSA: A Gravitational Search Algorithm. Inf. Sci. 2009, 179, 2232–2248. [CrossRef]
45. Dehghani, M.; Montazeri, Z.; Dehghani, A.; Seifi, A. Spring search algorithm: A new meta-heuristic optimization algorithm
inspired by Hooke’s law. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 4th International Conference on Knowledge-Based Engineering and
Innovation (KBEI), Tehran, Iran, 22 December 2017; IEEE: Tehran, Iran, 2017; pp. 0210–0214.
46. Dehghani, M.; Montazeri, Z.; Dhiman, G.; Malik, O.; Morales-Menendez, R.; Ramirez-Mendoza, R.A.; Dehghani, A.; Guerrero,
J.M.; Parra-Arroyo, L. A Spring Search Algorithm Applied to Engineering Optimization Problems. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6173.
[CrossRef]
47. Dehghani, M.; Samet, H. Momentum search algorithm: A new meta-heuristic optimization algorithm inspired by momentum
conservation law. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 1720. [CrossRef]
48. Su, H.; Zhao, D.; Heidari, A.A.; Liu, L.; Zhang, X.; Mafarja, M.; Chen, H. RIME: A physics-based optimization. Neurocomputing
2023, 532, 183–214. [CrossRef]
49. Mirjalili, S.; Mirjalili, S.M.; Hatamlou, A. Multi-verse optimizer: A nature-inspired algorithm for global optimization. Neural
Comput. Appl. 2016, 27, 495–513.
50. Hashim, F.A.; Mostafa, R.R.; Hussien, A.G.; Mirjalili, S.; Sallam, K.M. Fick’s Law Algorithm: A physical law-based algorithm for
numerical optimization. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2023, 260, 110146. [CrossRef]
51. Faramarzi, A.; Heidarinejad, M.; Stephens, B.; Mirjalili, S. Equilibrium optimizer: A novel optimization algorithm. Knowl.-Based
Syst. 2020, 191, 105190. [CrossRef]
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 35 of 37

52. Abdel-Basset, M.; Mohamed, R.; Azeem, S.A.A.; Jameel, M.; Abouhawwash, M. Kepler optimization algorithm: A new meta-
heuristic algorithm inspired by Kepler’s laws of planetary motion. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2023, 268, 110454. [CrossRef]
53. Eskandar, H.; Sadollah, A.; Bahreininejad, A.; Hamdi, M. Water cycle algorithm—A novel metaheuristic optimization method for
solving constrained engineering optimization problems. Comput. Struct. 2012, 110, 151–166. [CrossRef]
54. Hashim, F.A.; Houssein, E.H.; Mabrouk, M.S.; Al-Atabany, W.; Mirjalili, S. Henry gas solubility optimization: A novel physics-
based algorithm. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 2019, 101, 646–667. [CrossRef]
55. Rao, R.V.; Savsani, V.J.; Vakharia, D. Teaching–learning-based optimization: A novel method for constrained mechanical design
optimization problems. Comput. Aided Des. 2011, 43, 303–315. [CrossRef]
56. Matoušová, I.; Trojovský, P.; Dehghani, M.; Trojovská, E.; Kostra, J. Mother optimization algorithm: A new human-based
metaheuristic approach for solving engineering optimization. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 10312. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Dehghani, M.; Mardaneh, M.; Malik, O. FOA: ‘Following’ Optimization Algorithm for solving Power engineering optimization
problems. J. Oper. Autom. Power Eng. 2020, 8, 57–64.
58. Dehghani, M.; Trojovský, P. Teamwork Optimization Algorithm: A New Optimization Approach for Function Minimiza-
tion/Maximization. Sensors 2021, 21, 4567. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Dehghani, M.; Trojovská, E.; Trojovský, P. A new human-based metaheuristic algorithm for solving optimization problems on the
base of simulation of driving training process. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 9924. [CrossRef]
60. Trojovský, P.; Dehghani, M.; Trojovská, E.; Milkova, E. The Language Education Optimization: A New Human-Based Meta-
heuristic Algorithm for Solving Optimization Problems: Language Education Optimization. Comput. Model. Eng. Sci. 2022, 136,
1527–1573.
61. Dehghani, M.; Trojovská, E.; Zuščák, T. A new human-inspired metaheuristic algorithm for solving optimization problems based
on mimicking sewing training. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 17387. [CrossRef]
62. Trojovská, E.; Dehghani, M. A new human-based metahurestic optimization method based on mimicking cooking training. Sci.
Rep. 2022, 12, 14861. [CrossRef]
63. Braik, M.; Ryalat, M.H.; Al-Zoubi, H. A novel meta-heuristic algorithm for solving numerical optimization problems: Ali Baba
and the forty thieves. Neural Comput. Appl. 2022, 34, 409–455. [CrossRef]
64. Ayyarao, T.L.; Ramakrishna, N.; Elavarasan, R.M.; Polumahanthi, N.; Rambabu, M.; Saini, G.; Khan, B.; Alatas, B. War Strategy
Optimization Algorithm: A New Effective Metaheuristic Algorithm for Global Optimization. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 25073–25105.
[CrossRef]
65. Givi, H.; Hubalovska, M. Skill Optimization Algorithm: A New Human-Based Metaheuristic Technique. Comput. Mater. Contin.
2023, 74, 179–202. [CrossRef]
66. Shi, Y. Brain storm optimization algorithm. In Proceedings of the International Conference in Swarm Intelligence, Chongqing,
China, 12–15 June 2011; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 303–309.
67. Moosavi, S.H.S.; Bardsiri, V.K. Poor and rich optimization algorithm: A new human-based and multi populations algorithm. Eng.
Appl. Artif. Intell. 2019, 86, 165–181. [CrossRef]
68. Moghdani, R.; Salimifard, K. Volleyball Premier League Algorithm. Appl. Soft Comput. 2018, 64, 161–185. [CrossRef]
69. Zeidabadi, F.A.; Dehghani, M. POA: Puzzle Optimization Algorithm. Int. J. Intell. Eng. Syst. 2022, 15, 273–281.
70. Doumari, S.A.; Givi, H.; Dehghani, M.; Malik, O.P. Ring Toss Game-Based Optimization Algorithm for Solving Various Optimiza-
tion Problems. Int. J. Intell. Eng. Syst. 2021, 14, 545–554. [CrossRef]
71. Givi, H.; Hubálovská, M. Billiards Optimization Algorithm: A New Game-Based Metaheuristic Approach. Comput. Mater. Contin.
2023, 74, 5283–5300. [CrossRef]
72. Kashan, A.H. League Championship Algorithm (LCA): An algorithm for global optimization inspired by sport championships.
Appl. Soft Comput. 2014, 16, 171–200. [CrossRef]
73. Kaveh, A.; Zolghadr, A. A novel meta-heuristic algorithm: Tug of war optimization. Iran Univ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 6, 469–492.
74. Ma, B.; Hu, Y.; Lu, P.; Liu, Y. Running city game optimizer: A game-based metaheuristic optimization algorithm for global
optimization. J. Comput. Des. Eng. 2023, 10, 65–107. [CrossRef]
75. Osaba, E.; Yang, X.-S. Soccer-Inspired Metaheuristics: Systematic Review of Recent Research and Applications. Appl. Optim.
Swarm Intell. 2021, 81–102. [CrossRef]
76. Geem, Z.W.; Kim, J.H.; Loganathan, G.V. A new heuristic optimization algorithm: Harmony search. Simulation 2001, 76, 60–68.
[CrossRef]
77. Ashrafi, S.; Dariane, A. A novel and effective algorithm for numerical optimization: Melody Search (MS). In Proceedings of the
11th International Conference on Hybrid Intelligent Systems, Melacca, Malaysia, 5–8 December 2011; pp. 109–114. [CrossRef]
78. Mora-Gutiérrez, R.A.; Ramírez-Rodríguez, J.; Rincón-García, E.A. An optimization algorithm inspired by musical composition.
Artif. Intell. Rev. 2014, 41, 301–315. [CrossRef]
79. Lam, A.Y.; Li, V.O. Chemical-Reaction-Inspired Metaheuristic for Optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 2009, 14, 381–399.
[CrossRef]
80. Alatas, B. ACROA: Artificial Chemical Reaction Optimization Algorithm for global optimization. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38,
13170–13180. [CrossRef]
81. Akyol, S.; Alatas, B. Plant intelligence based metaheuristic optimization algorithms. Artif. Intell. Rev. 2017, 47, 417–462. [CrossRef]
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 36 of 37

82. Yang, X.-S. Flower pollination algorithm for global optimization. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Unconven-
tional Computing and Natural Computation, Orléan, France, 3–7 September 2012; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012;
pp. 240–249.
83. Mehrabian, A.R.; Lucas, C. A novel numerical optimization algorithm inspired from weed colonization. Ecol. Inform. 2006, 1,
355–366. [CrossRef]
84. Premaratne, U.; Samarabandu, J.; Sidhu, T. A new biologically inspired optimization algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2009
International Conference on Industrial and Information Systems (ICIIS), Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, 28–31 December 2009; IEEE: New
York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 279–284.
85. Qi, X.; Zhu, Y.; Chen, H.; Zhang, D.; Niu, B. An idea based on plant root growth for numerical optimization. In Proceedings of
the Intelligent Computing Theories and Technology: 9th International Conference, ICIC 2013, Nanning, China, 28–31 July 2013;
Proceedings 9; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 571–578.
86. Labbi, Y.; Ben Attous, D.; Gabbar, H.A.; Mahdad, B.; Zidan, A. A new rooted tree optimization algorithm for economic dispatch
with valve-point effect. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2016, 79, 298–311. [CrossRef]
87. Salem, S.A. In BOA: A novel optimization algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Engineering and
Technology (ICET), Cairo, Egypt, 10–11 October 2012; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 1–5.
88. Trojovský, P.; Dehghani, M. Subtraction-Average-Based Optimizer: A New Swarm-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithm for Solving
Optimization Problems. Biomimetics 2023, 8, 149. [CrossRef]
89. Dehghani, M.; Trojovský, P. Selecting Some Variables to Update-Based Algorithm for Solving Optimization Problems. Sensors
2022, 22, 1795. [CrossRef]
90. Dehghani, M.; Hubálovský, Š.; Trojovský, P. A new optimization algorithm based on average and subtraction of the best and
worst members of the population for solving various optimization problems. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 2022, 8, e910. [CrossRef]
91. Mirjalili, S. SCA: A Sine Cosine Algorithm for solving optimization problems. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2016, 96, 120–133. [CrossRef]
92. Wang, G.-G.; Deb, S.; Cui, Z. Monarch butterfly optimization. Neural Comput. Appl. 2019, 31, 1995–2014. [CrossRef]
93. Li, S.; Chen, H.; Wang, M.; Heidari, A.A.; Mirjalili, S. Slime mould algorithm: A new method for stochastic optimization. Future
Gener. Comput. Syst. 2020, 111, 300–323. [CrossRef]
94. Wang, G.-G. Moth search algorithm: A bio-inspired metaheuristic algorithm for global optimization problems. Memetic Comput.
2018, 10, 151–164. [CrossRef]
95. Yang, Y.; Chen, H.; Heidari, A.A.; Gandomi, A.H. Hunger games search: Visions, conception, implementation, deep analysis,
perspectives, and towards performance shifts. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 177, 114864. [CrossRef]
96. Ahmadianfar, I.; Heidari, A.A.; Gandomi, A.H.; Chu, X.; Chen, H. RUN beyond the metaphor: An efficient optimization algorithm
based on Runge Kutta method. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 181, 115079. [CrossRef]
97. Tu, J.; Chen, H.; Wang, M.; Gandomi, A.H. The Colony Predation Algorithm. J. Bionic Eng. 2021, 18, 674–710.
98. Ahmadianfar, I.; Heidari, A.A.; Noshadian, S.; Chen, H.; Gandomi, A.H. INFO: An Efficient Optimization Algorithm based on
Weighted Mean of Vectors. Expert Syst. Appl. 2022, 195, 116516. [CrossRef]
99. Heidari, A.A.; Mirjalili, S.; Faris, H.; Aljarah, I.; Mafarja, M.; Chen, H. Harris hawks optimization: Algorithm and applications.
Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 2019, 97, 849–872. [CrossRef]
100. Dehghani, M.; Mardaneh, M.; Malik, O.P.; Guerrero, J.M.; Morales-Menendez, R.; Ramirez-Mendoza, R.A.; Matas, J.; Abusorrah, A.
Energy Commitment for a Power System Supplied by Multiple Energy Carriers System using Following Optimization Algorithm.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5862. [CrossRef]
101. Adger, W.N. Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2000, 24, 347–364. [CrossRef]
102. Perrings, C. Resilience and sustainable development. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2006, 11, 417–427. [CrossRef]
103. Qing, K.; Huang, Q.; Du, Y.; Jiang, L.; Bamisile, O.; Hu, W. Distributionally robust unit commitment with an adjustable uncertainty
set and dynamic demand response. Energy 2023, 262, 125434. [CrossRef]
104. Padhy, N.P. Unit Commitment—A Bibliographical Survey. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 2004, 19, 1196–1205. [CrossRef]
105. Premkumar, M.; Sowmya, R.; Ramakrishnan, C.; Jangir, P.; Houssein, E.H.; Deb, S.; Kumar, N.M. An efficient and reliable
scheduling algorithm for unit commitment scheme in microgrid systems using enhanced mixed integer particle swarm optimizer
considering uncertainties. Energy Rep. 2023, 9, 1029–1053. [CrossRef]
106. Di Somma, M.; Yan, B.; Bianco, N.; Graditi, G.; Luh, P.; Mongibello, L.; Naso, V. Multi-objective design optimization of distributed
energy systems through cost and exergy assessments. Appl. Energy 2017, 204, 1299–1316. [CrossRef]
107. Jiang, Y.; Xu, J.; Sun, Y.; Wei, C.; Wang, J.; Liao, S.; Ke, D.; Li, X.; Yang, J.; Peng, X. Coordinated operation of gas-electricity
integrated distribution system with multi-CCHP and distributed renewable energy sources. Appl. Energy 2018, 211, 237–248.
[CrossRef]
108. Samsatli, S.; Samsatli, N.J. A multi-objective MILP model for the design and operation of future integrated multi-vector energy
networks capturing detailed spatio-temporal dependencies. Appl. Energy 2018, 220, 893–920. [CrossRef]
109. Fauvel, C.; Claveau, F.; Chevrel, P.; Fiani, P. A flexible design methodology to solve energy management problems. Int. J. Electr.
Power Energy Syst. 2018, 97, 220–232. [CrossRef]
110. Gargari, M.Z.; Ghaffarpour, R. Reliability evaluation of multi-carrier energy system with different level of demands under various
weather situation. Energy 2020, 196, 117091. [CrossRef]
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386 37 of 37

111. Pazouki, S.; Asrari, A. Technical, Financial, and Environmental Effects of Distributed Energy Resources on Multi Carrier Energy
Networks. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Power & Energy Society Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference (ISGT),
Washington, DC, USA, 17–20 February 2020; pp. 1–5. [CrossRef]
112. Yao, X.; Liu, Y.; Lin, G. Evolutionary programming made faster. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 1999, 3, 82–102.
113. Awad, N.; Ali, M.; Liang, J.; Qu, B.; Suganthan, P.; Definitions, P. Evaluation criteria for the CEC 2017 special session and
competition on single objective real-parameter numerical optimization. Technol. Rep. 2016.
114. Gandomi, A.H.; Yang, X.-S. Benchmark Problems in Structural Optimization. In Computational Optimization, Methods and
Algo-rithms; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 259–281. [CrossRef]
115. Mezura-Montes, E.; Coello, C.A.C. Useful Infeasible Solutions in Engineering Optimization with Evolutionary Algorithms. In
Proceedings of the Mexican International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Mexico City, Mexico, 25–30 October 2021; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; pp. 652–662. [CrossRef]
116. Kannan, B.; Kramer, S.N. An Augmented Lagrange Multiplier Based Method for Mixed Integer Discrete Continuous Optimization
and Its Applications to Mechanical Design. J. Mech. Des. 1994, 116, 405–411. [CrossRef]
117. Wilcoxon, F. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. In Breakthroughs in Statistics; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1992;
pp. 196–202.
118. Dehghani, M.; Mardaneh, M.; Guerrero, J.M.; Malik, O.P.; Ramirez-Mendoza, R.A.; Matas, J.; Vasquez, J.C.; Parra-Arroyo, L. A
New “Doctor and Patient” Optimization Algorithm: An Application to Energy Commitment Problem. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5791.
[CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.