Accepted Manuscript

Harris hawks optimization: Algorithm and applications

Ali Asghar Heidari, Seyedali Mirjalili, Hossam Faris, Ibrahim Aljarah,

Majdi Mafarja, Huiling Chen

PII: S0167-739X(18)31353-0
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.02.028
Reference: FUTURE 4781

To appear in: Future Generation Computer Systems

Received date : 2 June 2018

Revised date : 29 December 2018
Accepted date : 18 February 2019

Please cite this article as: A.A. Heidari, S. Mirjalili, H. Faris et al., Harris hawks optimization:
Algorithm and applications, Future Generation Computer Systems (2019),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.02.028

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Harris Hawks Optimization: Algorithm and Applications
Ali Asghar Heidaria , Seyedali Mirjalilib , Hossam Farisc , Ibrahim Aljarahc , Majdi Mafarjad ,
Huiling Chen ∗e
a
School of Surveying and Geospatial Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
as [email protected]
b
School of Information and Communication Technology, Griffith University, Nathan, Brisbane, QLD 4111,
Australia
seyedali.mirjalili@griffithuni.edu.au
c
King Abdullah II School for Information Technology, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
{i.aljarah,hossam.faris}@ju.edu.jo
d
Department of Computer Science, Birzeit University, POBox 14, West Bank, Palestine
[email protected]
e
Department of Computer Science, Wenzhou University, Wenzhou 325035, China
[email protected]

Abstract
In this paper, a novel population-based, nature-inspired optimization paradigm is proposed, which
is called Harris Hawks Optimizer (HHO). The main inspiration of HHO is the cooperative behavior
and chasing style of Harris’ hawks in nature called surprise pounce. In this intelligent strategy,
several hawks cooperatively pounce a prey from different directions in an attempt to surprise it.
Harris hawks can reveal a variety of chasing patterns based on the dynamic nature of scenarios
and escaping patterns of the prey. This work mathematically mimics such dynamic patterns and
behaviors to develop an optimization algorithm. The effectiveness of the proposed HHO optimizer
is checked, through a comparison with other nature-inspired techniques, on 29 benchmark problems
and several real-world engineering problems. The statistical results and comparisons show that
the HHO algorithm provides very promising and occasionally competitive results compared to
well-established metaheuristic techniques.
Keywords:
Nature-inspired computing, Harris hawks optimization algorithm, Swarm intelligence,
Optimization, Metaheuristic

1 Introduction
1 Many real-world problems in machine learning and artificial intelligence have generally a con-
2 tinuous, discrete, constrained or unconstrained nature [1, 2]. Due to these characteristics, it is
3 hard to tackle some classes of problems using conventional mathematical programming approaches
4 such as conjugate gradient, sequential quadratic programming, fast steepest, and quasi-Newton
5 methods [3, 4]. Several types of research have verified that these methods are not efficient enough
6 or always efficient in dealing with many larger-scale real-world multimodal, non-continuous, and
7 non-differentiable problems [5]. Accordingly, metaheuristic algorithms have been designed and
8 utilized for tackling many problems as competitive alternative solvers, which is because of their

∗
Corresponding author: Huiling Chen ([email protected])

Preprint submitted to Future Generation Computing Systems December 29, 2018

 9 simplicity and easy implementation process. In addition, the core operations of these methods do
10 not rely on gradient information of the objective landscape or its mathematical traits. However,
11 the common shortcoming for the majority of metaheuristic algorithms is that they often show
12 a delicate sensitivity to the tuning of user-defined parameters. Another drawback is that the
13 metaheuristic algorithms may not always converge to the global optimum. [6]
14 In general, metaheuristic algorithms have two types [7]; single solution based (i.g. Simulated
15 Annealing (SA) [8]) and population-based (i.g. Genetic Algorithm (GA) [9]). As the name indi-
16 cates, in the former type, only one solution is processed during the optimization phase, while in
17 the latter type, a set of solutions (i.e. population) are evolved in each iteration of the optimiza-
18 tion process. Population-based techniques can often find an optimal or suboptimal solution that
19 may be same with the exact optimum or located in its neighborhood. Population-based meta-
20 heuristic (P-metaheuristics) techniques mostly mimic natural phenomena [10, 11, 12, 13]. These
21 algorithms start the optimization process by generating a set (population) of individuals, where
22 each individual in the population represents a candidate solution to the optimization problem. The
23 population will be evolved iteratively by replacing the current population with a newly generated
24 population using some often stochastic operators [14, 15]. The optimization process is proceeded
25 until satisfying a stopping criteria (i.e. maximum number of iterations) [16, 17].
26 Based on the inspiration, P-metaheuristics can be categorized in four main groups [18, 19] (see
27 Fig. 1): Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs), Physics-based, Human-based, and Swarm Intelligence
28 (SI) algorithms. EAs mimic the biological evolutionary behaviors such as recombination, mutation,
29 and selection. The most popular EA is the GA that mimics the Darwinian theory of evolution [20].
30 Other popular examples of EAs are Differential Evolution (DE) [21], Genetic Programming (GP)
31 [20], and Biogeography-Based Optimizer (BBO) [22]. Physics-based algorithms are inspired by the
32 physical laws. Some examples of these algorithms are Big-Bang Big-Crunch (BBBC) [23], Central
33 Force Optimization (CFO) [24], and Gravitational Search Algorithm (GSA) [25]. Salcedo-Sanz
34 [26] has deeply reviewed several physic-based optimizers. The third category of P-metaheuristics
35 includes the set of algorithms that mimic some human behaviors. Some examples of the human-
36 based algorithms are Tabu Search (TS) [27], Socio Evolution and Learning Optimization (SELO)
37 [28], and Teaching Learning Based Optimization(TLBO) [29]. As the last class of P-metaheuristics,
38 SI algorithms mimic the social behaviors (e.g. decentralized, self-organized systems) of organisms
39 living in swarms, flocks, or herds [30, 31]. For instance, the birds flocking behaviors is the main
40 inspiration of the Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) proposed by Eberhart and Kennedy [32].
41 In PSO, each particle in the swarm represents a candidate solution to the optimization problem.
42 In the optimization process, each particle is updated with regard to the position of the global best
43 particle and its own (local) best position. Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) [33], Cuckoo Search
44 (CS) [34], and Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) are other examples of the SI techniques.
45 Regardless of the variety of these algorithms, there is a common feature: the searching steps
46 have two phases: exploration (diversification) and exploitation (intensification) [26]. In the ex-
47 ploration phase, the algorithm should utilize and promote its randomized operators as much as
48 possible to deeply explore various regions and sides of the feature space. Hence, the exploratory
49 behaviors of a well-designed optimizer should have an enriched-enough random nature to effi-
50 ciently allocate more randomly-generated solutions to different areas of the problem topography
51 during early steps of the searching process [35]. The exploitation stage is normally performed after
52 the exploration phase. In this phase, the optimizer tries to focus on the neighborhood of better-
53 quality solutions located inside the feature space. It actually intensifies the searching process in
54 a local region instead of all-inclusive regions of the landscape. A well-organized optimizer should
55 be capable of making a reasonable, fine balance between the exploration and exploitation tenden-

2
 ABC F PSO
G E
CS ACO
F1
E1
GSA TS
G 1 Swarm-based

ased

Hum
BBBC TLBO
D
H D1

ics-b

an-ba
1
CFO H

Phys
O HS

sed
C1
I1 C
I Evolutionary
B1
J1
A1
BBO GP
GA
J DE
B
A
Figure 1: Classification of meta-heuristic techniques (meta-heuristic diamond)

56 cies. Otherwise, the possibility of being trapped in local optima (LO) and immature convergence
57 drawbacks increases.
58 We have witnessed a growing interest and awareness in the successful, inexpensive, efficient
59 application of EAs and SI algorithms in recent years. However, referring to No Free Lunch (NFL)
60 theorem [36], all optimization algorithms proposed so-far show an equivalent performance on
61 average if we apply them to all possible optimization tasks. According to NFL theorem, we cannot
62 theoretically consider an algorithm as a general-purpose universally-best optimizer. Hence, NFL
63 theorem encourages searching for developing more efficient optimizers. As a result of NFL theorem,
64 besides the widespread studies on the efficacy, performance aspects and results of traditional EAs
65 and SI algorithms, new optimizers with specific global and local searching strategies are emerging
66 in recent years to provide more variety of choices for researchers and experts in different fields.
67 In this paper, a new nature-inspired optimization technique is proposed to compete with other
68 optimizers. The main idea behind the proposed optimizer is inspired from the cooperative be-
69 haviors of one of the most intelligent birds, Harris’ Hawks, in hunting escaping preys (rabbits in
70 most cases) [37]. For this purpose, a new mathematical model is developed in this paper. Then, a
71 stochastic metaheuristic is designed based on the proposed mathematical model to tackle various
72 optimization problems.
73 The rest of this research is organized as follows. Section 2 represents the background inspiration
74 and info about the cooperative life of Harris’ hawks. Section 3 represents the mathematical model
75 and computational procedures of the HHO algorithm. The results of HHO in solving different
76 benchmark and real-world case studies are presented in Section 4 Finally, Section 6 concludes the
77 work with some useful perspectives.

78 2 Background
79 In 1997, Louis Lefebvre proposed an approach to measure the avian “IQ” based on the observed
80 innovations in feeding behaviors [38]. Based on his studies [38, 39, 40, 41], the hawks can be listed
81 amongst the most intelligent birds in nature. The Harris’ hawk (Parabuteo unicinctus) is a well-
82 known bird of prey that survives in somewhat steady groups found in southern half of Arizona,
83 USA [37]. Harmonized foraging involving several animals for catching and then, sharing the slain

3
84 animal has been persuasively observed for only particular mammalian carnivores. The Harris’s
85 hawk is distinguished because of its unique cooperative foraging activities together with other
86 family members living in the same stable group while other raptors usually attack to discover
87 and catch a quarry, alone. This avian desert predator shows evolved innovative team chasing
88 capabilities in tracing, encircling, flushing out, and eventually attacking the potential quarry.
89 These smart birds can organize dinner parties consisting of several individuals in the non-breeding
90 season. They are known as truly cooperative predators in the raptor realm. As reported by
91 Bednarz [37] in 1998, they begin the team mission at morning twilight, with leaving the rest
92 roosts and often perching on giant trees or power poles inside their home realm. They know their
93 family members and try to be aware of their moves during the attack. When assembled and party
94 gets started, some hawks one after the other make short tours and then, land on rather high
95 perches. In this manner, the hawks occasionally will perform a “leapfrog” motion all over the
96 target site and they rejoin and split several times to actively search for the covered animal, which
97 is usually a rabbit2 .
98 The main tactic of Harris’ hawks to capture a prey is “surprise pounce”, which is also known
99 as “seven kills” strategy. In this intelligent strategy, several hawks try to cooperatively attack
100 from different directions and simultaneously converge on a detected escaping rabbit outside the
101 cover. The attack may rapidly be completed by capturing the surprised prey in few seconds, but
102 occasionally, regarding the escaping capabilities and behaviors of the prey, the seven kills may
103 include multiple, short-length, quick dives nearby the prey during several minutes. Harris’ hawks
104 can demonstrate a variety of chasing styles dependent on the dynamic nature of circumstances
105 and escaping patterns of a prey. A switching tactic occurs when the best hawk (leader) stoops
106 at the prey and get lost, and the chase will be continued by one of the party members. These
107 switching activities can be observed in different situations because they are beneficial for confusing
108 the escaping rabbit. The main advantage of these cooperative tactics is that the Harris’ hawks
109 can pursue the detected rabbit to exhaustion, which increases its vulnerability. Moreover, by
110 perplexing the escaping prey, it cannot recover its defensive capabilities and finally, it cannot
111 escape from the confronted team besiege since one of the hawks, which is often the most powerful
112 and experienced one, effortlessly captures the tired rabbit and shares it with other party members.
113 Harris’ hawks and their main behaviors can be seen in nature, as captured in Fig. 2.

(a) Parabuteo unicinctus (b) Surprise pounce

Figure 2: Harris’s hawk and their behaviors3

2
Interested readers can refer to the following documentary videos: (a) https://bit.ly/2Qew2qN, (b) https:
//bit.ly/2qsh8Cl, (c) https://bit.ly/2P7OMvH, (d) https://bit.ly/2DosJdS
3
These images were obtained from (a) https://bit.ly/2qAsODb (b) https://bit.ly/2zBFo9l

4
114 3 Harris hawks optimization (HHO)
115 In this section, we model the exploratory and exploitative phases of the proposed HHO in-
116 spired by the exploring a prey, surprise pounce, and different attacking strategies of Harris hawks.
117 HHO is a population-based, gradient-free optimization technique; hence, it can be applied to any
118 optimization problem subject to a proper formulation. Figure 3 shows all phases of HHO, which
119 are described in the next subsections.

|E|=1

Figure 3: Different phases of HHO

120 3.1 Exploration phase

121 In this part, the exploration mechanism of HHO is proposed. If we consider the nature of
122 Harris’ hawks, they can track and detect the prey by their powerful eyes, but occasionally the
123 prey cannot be seen easily. Hence, the hawks wait, observe, and monitor the desert site to detect
124 a prey maybe after several hours. In HHO, the Harris’ hawks are the candidate solutions and the
125 best candidate solution in each step is considered as the intended prey or nearly the optimum. In
126 HHO, the Harris’ hawks perch randomly on some locations and wait to detect a prey based on two
127 strategies. If we consider an equal chance q for each perching strategy, they perch based on the
128 positions of other family members (to be close enough to them when attacking) and the rabbit,
129 which is modeled in Eq. (1) for the condition of q < 0.5, or perch on random tall trees (random
130 locations inside the group’s home range), which is modeled in Eq. (1) for condition of q ≥ 0.5.
{
Xrand (t) − r1 |Xrand (t) − 2r2 X(t)| q ≥ 0.5
X(t + 1) = (1)
(Xrabbit (t) − Xm (t)) − r3 (LB + r4 (U B − LB)) q < 0.5
where X(t + 1) is the position vector of hawks in the next iteration t, Xrabbit (t) is the position
of rabbit, X(t) is the current position vector of hawks, r1 , r2 , r3 , r4 , and q are random numbers
inside (0,1), which are updated in each iteration, LB and U B show the upper and lower bounds of
variables, Xrand (t) is a randomly selected hawk from the current population, and Xm is the average

5
 position of the current population of hawks. We proposed a simple model to generate random
locations inside the group’s home range (LB, U B). The first rule generates solutions based on a
random location and other hawks. In second rule of Eq. (1), we have the difference of the location
of best so far and the average position of the group plus a randomly-scaled component based on
range of variables, while r3 is a scaling coefficient to further increase the random nature of rule
once r4 takes close values to 1 and similar distribution patterns may occur. In this rule, we add a
randomly scaled movement length to the LB. Then, we considered a random scaling coefficient for
the component to provide more diversification trends and explore different regions of the feature
space. It is possible to construct different updating rules, but we utilized the simplest rule, which
is able to mimic the behaviors of hawks. The average position of hawks is attained using Eq. (2):
N
1 ∑
Xm (t) = Xi (t) (2)
N i=1

131 where Xi (t) indicates the location of each hawk in iteration t and N denotes the total number of
132 hawks. It is possible to obtain the average location in different ways, but we utilized the simplest
133 rule.

134 3.2 Transition from exploration to exploitation

The HHO algorithm can transfer from exploration to exploitation and then, change between
different exploitative behaviors based on the escaping energy of the prey. The energy of a prey
decreases considerably during the escaping behavior. To model this fact, the energy of a prey is
modeled as:
t
E = 2E0 (1 − ) (3)
T
135 where E indicates the escaping energy of the prey, T is the maximum number of iterations, and
136 E0 is the initial state of its energy. In HHO, E0 randomly changes inside the interval (-1, 1) at
137 each iteration. When the value of E0 decreases from 0 to -1, the rabbit is physically flagging,
138 whilst when the value of E0 increases from 0 to 1, it means that the rabbit is strengthening.
139 The dynamic escaping energy E has a decreasing trend during the iterations. When the escaping
140 energy |E| ≥1, the hawks search different regions to explore a rabbit location, hence, the HHO
141 performs the exploration phase, and when |E| <1, the algorithm try to exploit the neighborhood
142 of the solutions during the exploitation steps. In short, exploration happens when |E| ≥1, while
143 exploitation happens in later steps when |E| <1. The time-dependent behavior of E is also
144 demonstrated in Fig. 4.

145 3.3 Exploitation phase

146 In this phase, the Harris’ hawks perform the surprise pounce (seven kills as called in [37])
147 by attacking the intended prey detected in the previous phase. However, preys often attempt
148 to escape from dangerous situations. Hence, different chasing styles occur in real situations.
149 According to the escaping behaviors of the prey and chasing strategies of the Harris’ hawks, four
150 possible strategies are proposed in the HHO to model the attacking stage.
151 The preys always try to escape from threatening situations. Suppose that r is the chance of a
152 prey in successfully escaping (r <0.5) or not successfully escaping (r ≥0.5) before surprise pounce.
153 Whatever the prey does, the hawks will perform a hard or soft besiege to catch the prey. It means
154 that they will encircle the prey from different directions softly or hard depending on the retained
155 energy of the prey. In real situations, the hawks get closer and closer to the intended prey to

6
 E=2E0 (1-t/T )
2

Escaping energy
0

−1

−2
0 100 200 300 400 500
iteration

Figure 4: Behavior of E during two runs and 500 iterations

156 increase their chances in cooperatively killing the rabbit by performing the surprise pounce. After
157 several minutes, the escaping prey will lose more and more energy; then, the hawks intensify the
158 besiege process to effortlessly catch the exhausted prey. To model this strategy and enable the
159 HHO to switch between soft and hard besiege processes, the E parameter is utilized.
160 In this regard, when |E| ≥0.5, the soft besiege happens, and when |E| <0.5, the hard besiege
161 occurs.

162 3.3.1 Soft besiege

163 When r ≥ 0.5 and |E| ≥ 0.5, the rabbit still has enough energy, and try to escape by some
164 random misleading jumps but finally it cannot. During these attempts, the Harris’ hawks encircle
165 it softly to make the rabbit more exhausted and then perform the surprise pounce. This behavior
166 is modeled by the following rules:

X(t + 1) = ∆X(t) − E |JXrabbit (t) − X(t)| (4)

∆X(t) = Xrabbit (t) − X(t) (5)
167 where ∆X(t) is the difference between the position vector of the rabbit and the current location
168 in iteration t, r5 is a random number inside (0,1), and J = 2(1 − r5 ) represents the random jump
169 strength of the rabbit throughout the escaping procedure. The J value changes randomly in each
170 iteration to simulate the nature of rabbit motions.

171 3.3.2 Hard besiege

When r ≥0.5 and |E| <0.5, the prey is so exhausted and it has a low escaping energy. In
addition, the Harris’ hawks hardly encircle the intended prey to finally perform the surprise pounce.
In this situation, the current positions are updated using Eq. (6):

X(t + 1) = Xrabbit (t) − E |∆X(t)| (6)

172 A simple example of this step with one hawk is depicted in Fig. 5.

173 3.3.3 Soft besiege with progressive rapid dives

174 When still |E| ≥0.5 but r <0.5, the rabbit has enough energy to successfully escape and still
175 a soft besiege is constructed before the surprise pounce. This procedure is more intelligent than
176 the previous case.

7
 B ΔX|
−E|
X rabbit
E
A X(t)
O
O1 X(t+1)
Xrabbit
Figure 5: Example Bof overall vectors in the case of hard besiege
ΔX

177 To mathematically model the escaping patterns of the prey and leapfrog movements (as called in
178 [37]), the levy flight (LF) concept is utilized in the HHO algorithm. The LF is utilized to mimic the
179 real zigzag deceptive motions of preys (particularity rabbits) during escaping phase and irregular,
180 abrupt, and rapid dives of hawks around the escaping prey. Actually, hawks perform several team
181 rapid dives around the rabbit and try to progressively correct their location and directions with
182 regard to the deceptive motions of prey. This mechanism is also supported by real observations
183 in other competitive situations in nature. It has been confirmed that LF-based activities are the
184 optimal searching tactics for foragers/predators in non-destructive foraging conditions [42, 43].
185 In addition, it has been detected the LF-based patterns can be detected in the chasing activities
186 of animals like monkeys and sharks [44, 45, 46, 47]. Hence, the LF-based motions were utilized
187 within this phase of HHO technique.
Inspired by real behaviors of hawks, we supposed that they can progressively select the best
possible dive toward the prey when they wish to catch the prey in the competitive situations.
Therefore, to perform a soft besiege, we supposed that the hawks can evaluate (decide) their next
move based on the following rule in Eq. (7):

Y = Xrabbit (t) − E |JXrabbit (t) − X(t)| (7)

Then, they compare the possible result of such a movement to the previous dive to detect that will
it be a good dive or not. If it was not reasonable (when they see that the prey is performing more
deceptive motions), they also start to perform irregular, abrupt, and rapid dives when approaching
the rabbit. We supposed that they will dive based on the LF-based patterns using the following
rule:
Z = Y + S × LF (D) (8)
where D is the dimension of problem and S is a random vector by size 1 × D and LF is the levy
flight function, which is calculated using Eq. (9) [48]:
( ) β1
u×σ Γ(1 + β) × sin( πβ
2
)
LF (x) = 0.01 × 1 ,σ = β−1 (9)
|v| β Γ( 1+β
2
) × β × 2( 2
)
)

188 where u, v are random values inside (0,1), β is a default constant set to 1.5.
Hence, the final strategy for updating the positions of hawks in the soft besiege phase can be
performed by Eq. (10): {
Y if F (Y ) < F (X(t))
X(t + 1) = (10)
Z if F (Z) < F (X(t))

8
189 where Y and Z are obtained using Eqs.(7) and (8).
190 A simple illustration of this step for one hawk is demonstrated in Fig. 6. Note that the
191 position history of LF-based leapfrog movement patterns during some iterations are also recorded
192 and shown in this illustration. The colored dots are the location footprints of LF-based patterns
193 in one trial and then, the HHO reaches to the location Z. In each step, only the better position
194 Y or Z will be selected as the next location. This strategy is applied to all search agents.

Y
Xrabb
it − E |J
Xrabb
it − X|
S×LF(D)
X
ΔX
Z

Xrabbit E

Figure 6: Example of overall vectors in the case of soft besiege with progressive rapid dives

195 3.3.4 Hard besiege with progressive rapid dives

When |E| <0.5 and r <0.5, the rabbit has not enough energy to escape and a hard besiege is
constructed before the surprise pounce to catch and kill the prey. The situation of this step in the
prey side is similar to that in the soft besiege, but this time, the hawks try to decrease the distance
of their average location with the escaping prey. Therefore, the following rule is performed in hard
besiege condition: {
Y if F (Y ) < F (X(t))
X(t + 1) = (11)
Z if F (Z) < F (X(t))
196 where Y and Z are obtained using new rules in Eqs.(12) and (13).

Y = Xrabbit (t) − E |JXrabbit (t) − Xm (t)| (12)

Z = Y + S × LF (D) (13)
197 where Xm (t) is obtained using Eq. (2). A simple example of this step is demonstrated in Fig. 7.
198 Note that the colored dots are the location footprints of LF-based patterns in one trial and only
199 Y or Z will be the next location for the new iteration.

200 3.4 Pseudocode of HHO

201 The pseudocode of the proposed HHO algorithm is reported in Algorithm 1.

9
 Y
Xrabb
it − E |J
Xrabb
it − Xm|
S×LF(D)
Xm

Z
X
ΔX
Xrabbit E

(a) The process in 2D space

Xm

Xrabbit − E Y
|JXrabbit − X
m|
X
S×LF(D)

ΔX
B
Z
E A
O
O1
Xrabbit
(b) BThe process in 3D space

Figure 7: Example of overall vectors in the case of hard besiege with progressive rapid dives in 2D and 3D space.

10
 Algorithm 1 Pseudo-code of HHO algorithm
Inputs: The population size N and maximum number of iterations T
Outputs: The location of rabbit and its fitness value
Initialize the random population Xi (i = 1, 2, . . . , N )
while (stopping condition is not met) do
Calculate the fitness values of hawks
Set Xrabbit as the location of rabbit (best location)
for (each hawk (Xi )) do
Update the initial energy E0 and jump strength J ▷ E0 =2rand()-1, J=2(1-rand())
Update the E using Eq. (3)
if (|E| ≥ 1) then ▷ Exploration phase
Update the location vector using Eq. (1)
if (|E| < 1) then ▷ Exploitation phase
if (r ≥0.5 and |E| ≥ 0.5 ) then ▷ Soft besiege
Update the location vector using Eq. (4)
else if (r ≥0.5 and |E| < 0.5 ) then ▷ Hard besiege
Update the location vector using Eq. (6)
else if (r <0.5 and |E| ≥ 0.5 ) then ▷ Soft besiege with progressive rapid dives
Update the location vector using Eq. (10)
else if (r <0.5 and |E| < 0.5 ) then ▷ Hard besiege with progressive rapid dives
Update the location vector using Eq. (11)
Return Xrabbit

202 3.5 Computational complexity

203 Note that the computational complexity of the HHO mainly depends on three processes: initial-
204 ization, fitness evaluation, and updating of hawks. Note that with N hawks, the computational
205 complexity of the initialization process is O(N ). The computational complexity of the updat-
206 ing mechanism is O(T ×N )+O(T ×N ×D), which is composed of searching for the best location
207 and updating the location vector of all hawks, where T is the maximum number of iterations
208 and D is the dimension of specific problems. Therefore, computational complexity of HHO is
209 O(N ×(T + T D + 1)).

210 4 Experimental results and discussions

211 4.1 Benchmark set and compared algorithms
212 In order to investigate the efficacy of the proposed HHO optimizer, a well-studied set of diverse
213 benchmark functions are selected from literature [49, 50]. This benchmark set covers three main
214 groups of benchmark landscapes: unimodal (UM), multimodal (MM), and composition (CM).
215 The UM functions (F1-F7) with unique global best can reveal the exploitative (intensification)
216 capacities of different optimizers, while the MM functions (F8-F23) can disclose the exploration
217 (diversification) and LO avoidance potentials of algorithms. The mathematical formulation and
218 characteristics of UM and MM problems are shown in Tables 16, 17, and 18 in Appendix A. The
219 third group problems (F24-F29) are selected from IEEE CEC 2005 competition [51] and covers
220 hybrid composite, rotated and shifted MM test cases. These CM cases are also utilized in many
221 papers and can expose the performance of utilized optimizers in well balancing the exploration

11
222 and exploitation inclinations and escaping from LO in dealing with challenging problems. Details
223 of the CM test problems are also reported in Table 19 in Appendix A. Figure 8 demonstrates three
224 of composition test problems.
225 The results and performance of the proposed HHO is compared with other well-established
226 optimization techniques such as the GA [22], BBO [22], DE [22], PSO [22], CS [34], TLBO [29],
227 BA/BAT [52], FPA [53], FA [54], GWO [55], and MFO [56] algorithms based on the best, worst,
228 standard deviation (STD) and average of the results (AVG). These algorithms cover both recently
229 proposed techniques such as MFO, GWO, CS, TLBO, BAT, FPA, and FA and also, relatively the
230 most utilized optimizers in the field like the GA, DE, PSO, and BBO algorithms.
231 As recommended by Derrac et al. [57], the non-parametric Wilcoxon statistical test with 5% de-
232 gree of significance is also performed along with experimental assessments to detect the significant
233 differences between the attained results of different techniques.
Parameter space Parameter space Parameter space

3000
4000
4000
2000 3000 3000
2000 2000
1000
1000 1000
0 0 0
5
−5 5 5
0 5 5
0 0 0
0 0
−5 5 x2
x1 x2 x2
−5 −5 x1 −5 −5 x1

(a) F26 (b) F28 (c) F29

Figure 8: Demonstration of composition test functions

234 4.2 Experimental setup

235 All algorithms were implemented under Matlab 7.10 (R2010a) on a computer with a Windows
236 7 64-bit professional and 64 GB RAM. The swarm size and maximum iterations of all optimizers
237 are set to 30 and 500, respectively. All results are recorded and compared based on the average
238 performance of optimizers over 30 independent runs.
239 The settings of GA, PSO, DE and BBO algorithms are same with those set by Dan Simon in
240 the original work of BBO [22], while for the BA [52], FA [58], TLBO [29], GWO [55], FPA [53],
241 CS [34], and MFO [56], the parameters are same with the recommended settings in the original
242 works. The used parameters are also reported in Table 1.

243 4.3 Qualitative results of HHO

244 The qualitative results of HHO for several standard unimodal and multimodal test problems
245 are demonstrated in Figs. 9-11. These results include four well-known metrics: search history, the
246 trajectory of the first hawk, average fitness of population, and convergence behavior. In addition,
247 the escaping energy of the rabbit is also monitored during iterations. The search history diagram
248 reveals the history of those positions visited by artificial hawks during iterations. The map of
249 the trajectory of the first hawk monitors how the first variable of the first hawk varies during
250 the steps of the process. The average fitness of hawks monitors how the average fitness of whole
251 population varies during the process of optimization. The convergence metric also reveals how the
252 fitness value of the rabbit (best solution) varies during the optimization. Note that the diagram
253 of escaping energy demonstrates how the energy of rabbit varies during the simulation.

12
 Search history E=2E0 (1-t/T )
P a ra m e te r sp a c e 2
100
4
x 10 1.5

2 50 1

Escaping energy
1.5 0.5

x2
1 0
−0.5
0.5
−50 −1
0
100
100 −1.5
0 0 −100 −2
x2 −100 −50 0 50 100 0 50 100 150 200
−100 −100 x1 x1 iteration

T r a je c t o r y o f 1 s t h a w k C o nv e rg e n c e c u rv e
A v e r a g e fit n e s s o f a ll h a w k s
0
10
40 15000

20
10000
−20
10
0

5000
−20
−40
10
−40 0
50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200
It e r a t io n It e r a t io n It e r a t io n

Search history E=2E0 (1-t/T )

P a ra m e te r sp a c e 2
100
4
x 10 1.5

5 50 1

Escaping energy
4 0.5
3
0
x2

0
2
−0.5
1
−50 −1
0
100
100 −1.5
0 0 −100 −2
x2 −100 −50 0 50 100 0 50 100 150 200
−100 −100 x1 x1 iteration

x 10
5 A v e r a g e fit n e s s o f a ll h a w k s
T r a je c t o r y o f 1 s t h a w k C o nv e rg e n c e c u rv e
100
0
5 10

50 4
−10
10
3
0
−20
2 10

−50 1 −30
10

0
50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200
It e r a t io n It e r a t io n It e r a t io n

Search history E=2E0 (1-t/T )

P a ra m e te r sp a c e 100 2

1.5

100 50 1
Escaping energy

0.5

0
x2

50 0
−0.5

−50 −1
0
100 −1.5
100
0 0 −100 −2
x2 −100 −50 0 50 100 0 50 100 150 200
−100 −100 x1 x1 iteration

T r a je c t o r y o f 1 s t h a w k A v e r a g e fit n e s s o f a ll h a w k s
C o nv e rg e n c e c u rv e
60

50 50
−5
10
40
−10
0 30 10

20 −15
10
−50
10
−20
10
0
50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200
It e r a t io n It e r a t io n It e r a t io n

Figure 9: Qualitative results for unimodal F1, F3, and F4 problems

13
 P a ra m e te r sp a c e
Search history E=2E0 (1-t/T )
2
1 1.5

3 1
0.5

Escaping energy
0.5
2

x2
0 0
1 −0.5
−0.5
0 −1

0.5 −1 −1.5
0 0.5
0 −2
−0.5 −0.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 0 50 100 150 200
x2 −1 −1 x1 x1 iteration

A v e r a g e fit n e s s o f a ll h a w k s
T r a je c t o r y o f 1 s t h a w k Convergence curve

20
0.5 −1
10
15
0
10
−2
−0.5 10
5

−1
0
50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200
It e r a t io n It e r a t io n Iteration

Search history
P a ra m e te r sp a c e E=2E0 (1-t/T )
5
2

1.5
80
1
60
Escaping energy
0.5
x2

40 0 0

20 −0.5

−1
0
5
5 −1.5
0 0 −5 −2
x2 −5 0 5 0 50 100 150 200
−5 −5 x1 x1 iteration

T r a je c t o r y o f 1 s t h a w k A v e r a g e fit n e s s o f a ll h a w k s C o nv e rg e n c e c u rv e
120 0
4 10

100
2
80
−5
10
0 60

40
−2
−10
20 10

−4 0
50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200
It e r a t io n It e r a t io n It e r a t io n

Search history
P a ra m e te r sp a c e E=2E0 (1-t/T )
30 2

1.5
20
20 1
10
Escaping energy

15 0.5
x2

0 0
10
−10 −0.5
5
−1
0 −20
20
20 −1.5
0 0 −30
−2
x2 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 0 50 100 150 200
−20 −20 x1 x1 iteration

T r a je c t o r y o f 1 s t h a w k A v e r a g e fit n e s s o f a ll h a w k s
C o nv e rg e n c e c u rv e
0
14 10
20
12
10
10 −5
10
0 8

6
−10 −10
10
4
−20
2
−15
−30 0 10
50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200
It e r a t io n It e r a t io n It e r a t io n

Figure 10: Qualitative results for F7, F9, and F10 problems

14
 Table 1: The parameter settings

Algorithm Parameter Value

DE Scaling factor 0.5
Crossover probability 0.5
PSO Topology fully connected
Inertia factor 0.3
c1 1
c2 1
TLBO Teaching factor T 1, 2
GWO Convergence constant a [2 0]
MFO Convergence constant a [-2 -1]
Spiral factor b 1
CS Discovery rate of alien solutions pa 0.25
BA Qmin Frequency minimum 0
Qmax Frequency maximum 2
A Loudness 0.5
r Pulse rate 0.5
FA α 0.5
β 0.2
γ 1
FPA Probability switch p 0.8
BBO Habitat modification probability 1
Immigration probability limits [0,1]
Step size 1
Max immigration (I) and Max emigration (E) 1
Mutation probability 0.005

Parameter space Search history E=2E0 (1-t/T )

50 2

1.5

1
10
Escaping energy

0.5
x2

0 0
5
−0.5

−1
0
5
5 −1.5
0 0 −50 −2
x2 −50 0 50 0 50 100 150 200
−5 −5 x1 x1 iteration

x 10
8 Average fitness of all hawks
Trajectory of 1st hawk Convergence curve
50
6

5 10
0

4
0 3
−1
2 10

−50 0
50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200
Iteration Iteration Iteration

Figure 11: Qualitative results for F13 problem

15
254 From the history of sampled locations in Figs. 9-11, it can be observed that the HHO reveals a
255 similar pattern in dealing with different cases, in which the hawks attempts to initially boost the
256 diversification and explore the favorable areas of solution space and then exploit the vicinity of
257 the best locations. The diagram of trajectories can help us to comprehend the searching behavior
258 of the foremost hawk (as a representative of the rest of hawks). By this metric, we can check
259 if the foremost hawk faces abrupt changes during the early phases and gradual variations in the
260 concluding steps. Referring to Van Den Bergh and Engelbrecht [59], these activities can guarantee
261 that a P-metaheuristic finally convergences to a position and exploit the target region.
262 As per trajectories in Figs. 9-11, we see that the foremost hawk start the searching procedure
263 with sudden movements. The amplitude of these variations covers more than 50% of the solution
264 space. This observation can disclose the exploration propensities of the proposed HHO. As times
265 passes, the amplitude of these fluctuations gradually decreases. This point guarantees the tran-
266 sition of HHO from exploratory trends to exploitative steps. Eventually, the motion pattern of
267 the first hawk becomes very stable which shows that the HHO is exploiting the promising regions
268 during the concluding steps. By monitoring the average fitness of the population, the next mea-
269 sure, we can notice the reduction patterns in fitness values when the HHO enriches the excellence
270 of the randomized candidate hawks. Based on the diagrams demonstrated in Figs. 9-11, the HHO
271 can enhance the quality of all hawks during half of the iterations and there is an accelerating
272 decreasing pattern in all curves. Again, the amplitude of variations of fitness results decreases by
273 more iteration. Hence, the HHO can dynamically focus on more promising areas during iterations.
274 According to convergence curves in Fig. Figs. 9-11, which shows the average fitness of best hawk
275 found so far, we can detect accelerated decreasing patterns in all curves, especially after half of
276 the iteration. We can also detect the estimated moment that the HHO shift from exploration to
277 exploitation. In this regard, it is observed that the HHO can reveal an accelerated convergence
278 trend.

279 4.4 Scalability analysis

280 In this section, a scalability assessment is utilized to investigate the impact of dimension on the
281 results of HHO. This test has been utilized in the previous studies and it can reveal the impact of
282 dimensions on the quality of solutions for the HHO optimizer to recognize its efficacy not only for
283 problems with lower dimensions but also for higher dimension tasks. In addition, it reveals how a
284 P-metaheuristic can preserve its searching advantages in higher dimensions. For this experiment,
285 the HHO is utilized to tackle the scalable UM and MM F1-F13 test cases with 30, 100, 500, and
286 1000 dimensions. The average error AVG and STD of the attained results of all optimizers over
287 30 independent runs and 500 iterations are recorded and compared for each dimension. Table 2
288 reveals the results of HHO versus other methods in dealing with F1-F13 problems with different
289 dimensions. The scalability results for all techniques are also illustrated in Fig. 12. Note that the
290 detailed results of all techniques are reported in the next parts.
291 As it can be seen in Table 2, the HHO can expose excellent results in all dimensions and
292 its performance remains consistently superior when realizing cases with many variables. As per
293 curves in Fig. 12, it is observed that the optimality of results and the performance of other
294 methods significantly degrade by increasing the dimensions. This reveals that HHO is capable
295 of maintaining a good balance between the exploratory and exploitative tendencies on problems
296 with many variables.

16
 F(x) F(x) F(x)
1.0E+020 1.0E+300
HHO
GA 1.0E+000
1.0E+000 1.0E+250 PSO
HHO BBO
GA FPA
PSO
1.0E+200 GWO
1.0E-020 BAT
BBO 1.0E-020 HHO
FPA 1.0E+150 FA GA
GWO CS PSO
1.0E-040 BAT MFO BBO
FA 1.0E+100 TLBO FPA
CS DE 1.0E-040 GWO
1.0E-060 MFO BAT
TLBO 1.0E+050 FA
DE CS
1.0E-080 1.0E+000 MFO
1.0E-060 TLBO
DE
1.0E-100 1.0E-050
30 100 500 1000 30 100 500 1000 30 100 500 1000
Dimension Dimension Dimension

(a) F1 (b) F2 (c) F3

F(x) F(x) F(x)
1.0E+010 1.0E+015 1.0E+010

1.0E+000
1.0E+010
1.0E+005
1.0E-010
HHO HHO HHO
GA 1.0E+005 GA GA
PSO PSO PSO
1.0E-020 BBO BBO 1.0E+000 BBO
FPA FPA FPA
GWO
1.0E+000 GWO GWO
1.0E-030 BAT BAT BAT
FA FA FA
CS CS
1.0E-005 CS
1.0E-005
1.0E-040 MFO MFO MFO
TLBO TLBO TLBO
DE DE DE
1.0E-050 1.0E-010 1.0E-010
30 100 500 1000 30 100 500 1000 30 100 500 1000
Dimension Dimension Dimension

(d) F4 (e) F5 (f) F6

F(x) F(x) F(x)
1.0E+010 -5.0E+005
HHO HHO
GA 1.6E+004 GA
PSO PSO
1.0E+005 -4.0E+005 BBO BBO
FPA FPA
GWO GWO
HHO BAT BAT
1.0E+000 GA
-3.0E+005 FA FA
PSO CS CS
BBO MFO MFO
FPA TLBO 8.0E+003 TLBO
1.0E-005 GWO
-2.0E+005 DE DE
BAT
FA
CS
1.0E-010 MFO
-1.0E+005
TLBO
DE
1.0E-015 0.0E+000 0.0E+000
30 100 500 1000 30 100 500 1000 30 100 500 1000
Dimension Dimension Dimension

(g) F7 (h) F8 (i) F9

F(x) F(x) F(x)
1.0E+005 4.0E+004 1.0E+012
HHO
GA
PSO
1.0E+000 BBO
3.0E+004 FPA
GWO 1.0E+006
HHO BAT HHO
1.0E-005 GA FA GA
PSO CS PSO
BBO
2.0E+004 MFO BBO
FPA TLBO FPA
1.0E-010 GWO DE 1.0E+000 GWO
BAT BAT
FA 1.0E+004 FA
CS CS
1.0E-015 MFO MFO
TLBO TLBO
DE
1.0E-006 DE
1.0E-020 0.0E+000
30 100 500 1000 30 100 500 1000 30 100 500 1000
Dimension Dimension Dimension

(j) F10 (k) F11 (l) F12

F(x)
1.0E+012

1.0E+006
HHO
GA
PSO
BBO
FPA
1.0E+000 GWO
BAT
FA
CS
MFO
TLBO
1.0E-006 DE

30 100 500 1000

Dimension

(m) F13

Figure 12: Scalability results of the HHO versus other methods in dealing with the F1-F13 cases with different
dimensions
17
 Table 2: Results of HHO for different dimensions of scalable F1-F13 problems

Problem/D Metric 30 100 500 1000

AVG 3.95E-97 1.91E-94 1.46E-92 1.06E-94
F1
STD 1.72E-96 8.66E-94 8.01E-92 4.97E-94
AVG 1.56E-51 9.98E-52 7.87E-49 2.52E-50
F2
STD 6.98E-51 2.66E-51 3.11E-48 5.02E-50
AVG 1.92E-63 1.84E-59 6.54E-37 1.79E-17
F3
STD 1.05E-62 1.01E-58 3.58E-36 9.81E-17
AVG 1.02E-47 8.76E-47 1.29E-47 1.43E-46
F4
STD 5.01E-47 4.79E-46 4.11E-47 7.74E-46
AVG 1.32E-02 2.36E-02 3.10E-01 5.73E-01
F5
STD 1.87E-02 2.99E-02 3.73E-01 1.40E+00
AVG 1.15E-04 5.12E-04 2.94E-03 3.61E-03
F6
STD 1.56E-04 6.77E-04 3.98E-03 5.38E-03
AVG 1.40E-04 1.85E-04 2.51E-04 1.41E-04
F7
STD 1.07E-04 4.06E-04 2.43E-04 1.63E-04
AVG -1.25E+04 -4.19E+04 -2.09E+05 -4.19E+05
F8
STD 1.47E+02 2.82E+00 2.84E+01 1.03E+02
AVG 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
F9
STD 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
AVG 8.88E-16 8.88E-16 8.88E-16 8.88E-16
F10
STD 4.01E-31 4.01E-31 4.01E-31 4.01E-31
AVG 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
F11
STD 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
AVG 7.35E-06 4.23E-06 1.41E-06 1.02E-06
F12
STD 1.19E-05 5.25E-06 1.48E-06 1.16E-06
AVG 1.57E-04 9.13E-05 3.44E-04 8.41E-04
F13
STD 2.15E-04 1.26E-04 4.75E-04 1.18E-03

297 4.5 Quantitative results of HHO and discussion

298 In this section, the results of HHO are compared with those of other optimizers for different
299 dimensions of F1-F13 test problems in addition to the F14-F29 MM and CM test cases. Note
300 that the results are presented for 30, 100, 500, and 1000 dimensions of the scalable F1-F13 prob-
301 lems. Tables 3-6 show the obtained results for HHO versus other competitors in dealing with
302 scalable functions. Table 8 also reveals the performance of algorithms in dealing with F14-F29
303 test problems. In order to investigate the significant differences between the results of proposed
304 HHO versus other optimizers, Wilcoxon rank-sum test with 5% degree is carefully performed here
305 [57]. Tables 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 in Appendix B show the attained p-values of the Wilcoxon
306 rank-sum test with 5% significance.
307 As per result in Table 3, the HHO can obtain the best results compared to other competitors
308 on F1-F5, F7, and F9-F13 problems. The results of HHO are considerably better than other
309 algorithms in dealing with 84.6% of these 30-dimensional functions, demonstrating the superior
310 performance of this optimizer. According to p-values in Table 20, it is detected that the observed
311 differences in the results are statistically meaningful for all cases. From Table 4, when we have a
312 100-dimensional search space, the HHO can considerably outperform other techniques and attain
313 the best results for 92.3% of F1-F13 problems. It is observed that the results of HHO are again
314 remarkably better than other techniques. With regard to p-values in Table 21, it is detected that
315 the solutions of HHO are significantly better than those realized by other techniques in almost
316 all cases. From Table 5, we see that the HHO can attain the best results in terms of AVG and
317 STD in dealing with 12 test cases with 500 dimensions. By considering p-values in Table 22, it is
318 recognized that the HHO can significantly outperform other optimizers in all cases. As per results
319 in Table 6, similarly to what we observed in lower dimensions, it is detected that the HHO has
320 still a remarkably superior performance in dealing with F1-F13 test functions compared to GA,
321 PSO, DE, BBO, CS, GWO, MFO, TLBO, BAT, FA, and FPA optimizers. The statistical results
322 in Table 23 also verify the significant gap between the results of HHO and other optimizers in

18
323 almost all cases. It is seen that the HHO has reached the best global optimum for F9 and F11
324 cases in any dimension.

Table 3: Results of benchmark functions (F1-F13), with 30 dimensions.

Benchmark HHO GA PSO BBO FPA GWO BAT FA CS MFO TLBO DE
AVG 3.95E-97 1.03E+03 1.83E+04 7.59E+01 2.01E+03 1.18E-27 6.59E+04 7.11E-03 9.06E-04 1.01E+03 2.17E-89 1.33E-03
F1
STD 1.72E-96 5.79E+02 3.01E+03 2.75E+01 5.60E+02 1.47E-27 7.51E+03 3.21E-03 4.55E-04 3.05E+03 3.14E-89 5.92E-04
AVG 1.56E-51 2.47E+01 3.58E+02 1.36E-03 3.22E+01 9.71E-17 2.71E+08 4.34E-01 1.49E-01 3.19E+01 2.77E-45 6.83E-03
F2
STD 6.98E-51 5.68E+00 1.35E+03 7.45E-03 5.55E+00 5.60E-17 1.30E+09 1.84E-01 2.79E-02 2.06E+01 3.11E-45 2.06E-03
AVG 1.92E-63 2.65E+04 4.05E+04 1.21E+04 1.41E+03 5.12E-05 1.38E+05 1.66E+03 2.10E-01 2.43E+04 3.91E-18 3.97E+04
F3
STD 1.05E-62 3.44E+03 8.21E+03 2.69E+03 5.59E+02 2.03E-04 4.72E+04 6.72E+02 5.69E-02 1.41E+04 8.04E-18 5.37E+03
AVG 1.02E-47 5.17E+01 4.39E+01 3.02E+01 2.38E+01 1.24E-06 8.51E+01 1.11E-01 9.65E-02 7.00E+01 1.68E-36 1.15E+01
F4
STD 5.01E-47 1.05E+01 3.64E+00 4.39E+00 2.77E+00 1.94E-06 2.95E+00 4.75E-02 1.94E-02 7.06E+00 1.47E-36 2.37E+00
AVG 1.32E-02 1.95E+04 1.96E+07 1.82E+03 3.17E+05 2.70E+01 2.10E+08 7.97E+01 2.76E+01 7.35E+03 2.54E+01 1.06E+02
F5
STD 1.87E-02 1.31E+04 6.25E+06 9.40E+02 1.75E+05 7.78E-01 4.17E+07 7.39E+01 4.51E-01 2.26E+04 4.26E-01 1.01E+02
AVG 1.15E-04 9.01E+02 1.87E+04 6.71E+01 1.70E+03 8.44E-01 6.69E+04 6.94E-03 3.13E-03 2.68E+03 3.29E-05 1.44E-03
F6
STD 1.56E-04 2.84E+02 2.92E+03 2.20E+01 3.13E+02 3.18E-01 5.87E+03 3.61E-03 1.30E-03 5.84E+03 8.65E-05 5.38E-04
AVG 1.40E-04 1.91E-01 1.07E+01 2.91E-03 3.41E-01 1.70E-03 4.57E+01 6.62E-02 7.29E-02 4.50E+00 1.16E-03 5.24E-02
F7
STD 1.07E-04 1.50E-01 3.05E+00 1.83E-03 1.10E-01 1.06E-03 7.82E+00 4.23E-02 2.21E-02 9.21E+00 3.63E-04 1.37E-02
AVG -1.25E+04 -1.26E+04 -3.86E+03 -1.24E+04 -6.45E+03 -5.97E+03 -2.33E+03 -5.85E+03 -5.19E+19 -8.48E+03 -7.76E+03 -6.82E+03
F8
STD 1.47E+02 4.51E+00 2.49E+02 3.50E+01 3.03E+02 7.10E+02 2.96E+02 1.16E+03 1.76E+20 7.98E+02 1.04E+03 3.94E+02
AVG 0.00E+00 9.04E+00 2.87E+02 0.00E+00 1.82E+02 2.19E+00 1.92E+02 3.82E+01 1.51E+01 1.59E+02 1.40E+01 1.58E+02
F9
STD 0.00E+00 4.58E+00 1.95E+01 0.00E+00 1.24E+01 3.69E+00 3.56E+01 1.12E+01 1.25E+00 3.21E+01 5.45E+00 1.17E+01
AVG 8.88E-16 1.36E+01 1.75E+01 2.13E+00 7.14E+00 1.03E-13 1.92E+01 4.58E-02 3.29E-02 1.74E+01 6.45E-15 1.21E-02
F10
STD 4.01E-31 1.51E+00 3.67E-01 3.53E-01 1.08E+00 1.70E-14 2.43E-01 1.20E-02 7.93E-03 4.95E+00 1.79E-15 3.30E-03
AVG 0.00E+00 1.01E+01 1.70E+02 1.46E+00 1.73E+01 4.76E-03 6.01E+02 4.23E-03 4.29E-05 3.10E+01 0.00E+00 3.52E-02
F11
STD 0.00E+00 2.43E+00 3.17E+01 1.69E-01 3.63E+00 8.57E-03 5.50E+01 1.29E-03 2.00E-05 5.94E+01 0.00E+00 7.20E-02
AVG 2.08E-06 4.77E+00 1.51E+07 6.68E-01 3.05E+02 4.83E-02 4.71E+08 3.13E-04 5.57E-05 2.46E+02 7.35E-06 2.25E-03
F12
STD 1.19E-05 1.56E+00 9.88E+06 2.62E-01 1.04E+03 2.12E-02 1.54E+08 1.76E-04 4.96E-05 1.21E+03 7.45E-06 1.70E-03
AVG 1.57E-04 1.52E+01 5.73E+07 1.82E+00 9.59E+04 5.96E-01 9.40E+08 2.08E-03 8.19E-03 2.73E+07 7.89E-02 9.12E-03
F13
STD 2.15E-04 4.52E+00 2.68E+07 3.41E-01 1.46E+05 2.23E-01 1.67E+08 9.62E-04 6.74E-03 1.04E+08 8.78E-02 1.16E-02

Table 4: Results of benchmark functions (F1-F13), with 100 dimensions.

Benchmark HHO GA PSO BBO FPA GWO BAT FA CS MFO TLBO DE
AVG 1.91E-94 5.41E+04 1.06E+05 2.85E+03 1.39E+04 1.59E-12 2.72E+05 3.05E-01 3.17E-01 6.20E+04 3.62E-81 8.26E+03
F1
STD 8.66E-94 1.42E+04 8.47E+03 4.49E+02 2.71E+03 1.63E-12 1.42E+04 5.60E-02 5.28E-02 1.25E+04 4.14E-81 1.32E+03
AVG 9.98E-52 2.53E+02 6.06E+23 1.59E+01 1.01E+02 4.31E-08 6.00E+43 1.45E+01 4.05E+00 2.46E+02 3.27E-41 1.21E+02
F2
STD 2.66E-51 1.41E+01 2.18E+24 3.74E+00 9.36E+00 1.46E-08 1.18E+44 6.73E+00 3.16E-01 4.48E+01 2.75E-41 2.33E+01
AVG 1.84E-59 2.53E+05 4.22E+05 1.70E+05 1.89E+04 4.09E+02 1.43E+06 4.65E+04 6.88E+00 2.15E+05 4.33E-07 5.01E+05
F3
STD 1.01E-58 5.03E+04 7.08E+04 2.02E+04 5.44E+03 2.77E+02 6.21E+05 6.92E+03 1.02E+00 4.43E+04 8.20E-07 5.87E+04
AVG 8.76E-47 8.19E+01 6.07E+01 7.08E+01 3.51E+01 8.89E-01 9.41E+01 1.91E+01 2.58E-01 9.31E+01 6.36E-33 9.62E+01
F4
STD 4.79E-46 3.15E+00 3.05E+00 4.73E+00 3.37E+00 9.30E-01 1.49E+00 3.12E+00 2.80E-02 2.13E+00 6.66E-33 1.00E+00
AVG 2.36E-02 2.37E+07 2.42E+08 4.47E+05 4.64E+06 9.79E+01 1.10E+09 8.46E+02 1.33E+02 1.44E+08 9.67E+01 1.99E+07
F5
STD 2.99E-02 8.43E+06 4.02E+07 2.05E+05 1.98E+06 6.75E-01 9.47E+07 8.13E+02 7.34E+00 7.50E+07 7.77E-01 5.80E+06
AVG 5.12E-04 5.42E+04 1.07E+05 2.85E+03 1.26E+04 1.03E+01 2.69E+05 2.95E-01 2.65E+00 6.68E+04 3.27E+00 8.07E+03
F6
STD 6.77E-04 1.09E+04 9.70E+03 4.07E+02 2.06E+03 1.05E+00 1.25E+04 5.34E-02 3.94E-01 1.46E+04 6.98E-01 1.64E+03
AVG 1.85E-04 2.73E+01 3.41E+02 1.25E+00 5.84E+00 7.60E-03 3.01E+02 5.65E-01 1.21E+00 2.56E+02 1.50E-03 1.96E+01
F7
STD 4.06E-04 4.45E+01 8.74E+01 5.18E+00 2.16E+00 2.66E-03 2.66E+01 1.64E-01 2.65E-01 8.91E+01 5.39E-04 5.66E+00
AVG -4.19E+04 -4.10E+04 -7.33E+03 -3.85E+04 -1.28E+04 -1.67E+04 -4.07E+03 -1.81E+04 -2.84E+18 -2.30E+04 -1.71E+04 -1.19E+04
F8
STD 2.82E+00 1.14E+02 4.75E+02 2.80E+02 4.64E+02 2.62E+03 9.37E+02 3.23E+03 6.91E+18 1.98E+03 3.54E+03 5.80E+02
AVG 0.00E+00 3.39E+02 1.16E+03 9.11E+00 8.47E+02 1.03E+01 7.97E+02 2.36E+02 1.72E+02 8.65E+02 1.02E+01 1.03E+03
F9
STD 0.00E+00 4.17E+01 5.74E+01 2.73E+00 4.01E+01 9.02E+00 6.33E+01 2.63E+01 9.24E+00 8.01E+01 5.57E+01 4.03E+01
AVG 8.88E-16 1.82E+01 1.91E+01 5.57E+00 8.21E+00 1.20E-07 1.94E+01 9.81E-01 3.88E-01 1.99E+01 1.66E-02 1.22E+01
F10
STD 4.01E-31 4.35E-01 2.04E-01 4.72E-01 1.14E+00 5.07E-08 6.50E-02 2.55E-01 5.23E-02 8.58E-02 9.10E-02 8.31E-01
AVG 0.00E+00 5.14E+02 9.49E+02 2.24E+01 1.19E+02 4.87E-03 2.47E+03 1.19E-01 4.56E-03 5.60E+02 0.00E+00 7.42E+01
F11
STD 0.00E+00 1.05E+02 6.00E+01 4.35E+00 2.00E+01 1.07E-02 1.03E+02 2.34E-02 9.73E-04 1.23E+02 0.00E+00 1.40E+01
AVG 4.23E-06 4.55E+06 3.54E+08 3.03E+02 1.55E+05 2.87E-01 2.64E+09 4.45E+00 2.47E-02 2.82E+08 3.03E-02 3.90E+07
F12
STD 5.25E-06 8.22E+06 8.75E+07 1.48E+03 1.74E+05 6.41E-02 2.69E+08 1.32E+00 5.98E-03 1.45E+08 1.02E-02 1.88E+07
AVG 9.13E-05 5.26E+07 8.56E+08 6.82E+04 2.76E+06 6.87E+00 5.01E+09 4.50E+01 5.84E+00 6.68E+08 5.47E+00 7.19E+07
F13
STD 1.26E-04 3.76E+07 2.16E+08 3.64E+04 1.80E+06 3.32E-01 3.93E+08 2.24E+01 1.21E+00 3.05E+08 8.34E-01 2.73E+07

325 In order to further check the efficacy of HHO, we recorded the running time taken by optimizers
326 to find the solutions for F1-F13 problems with 1000 dimensions and the results are exposed in
327 Table 7. As per results in Table 7, we detect that the HHO shows a reasonably fast and competitive
328 performance in finding the best solutions compared to other well-established optimizers even for
329 high dimensional unimodal and multimodal cases. Based on average running time on 13 problems,
330 the HHO performs faster than BBO, PSO, GA, CS, GWO, and FA algorithms. These observations
331 are also in accordance with the computational complexity of HHO.
332 The results in Table 8 verify that HHO provides superior and very competitive results on
333 F14-F23 fixed dimension MM test cases. The results on F16-F18 are very competitive and all
334 algorithms have attained high-quality results. Based on results in Table 8, the proposed HHO has

19
 Table 5: Results of benchmark functions (F1-F13), with 500 dimensions.
Benchmark HHO GA PSO BBO FPA GWO BAT FA CS MFO TLBO DE
AVG 1.46E-92 6.06E+05 6.42E+05 1.60E+05 8.26E+04 1.42E-03 1.52E+06 6.30E+04 6.80E+00 1.15E+06 2.14E-77 7.43E+05
F1
STD 8.01E-92 7.01E+04 2.96E+04 9.76E+03 1.32E+04 3.99E-04 3.58E+04 8.47E+03 4.93E-01 3.54E+04 1.94E-77 3.67E+04
AVG 7.87E-49 1.94E+03 6.08E+09 5.95E+02 5.13E+02 1.10E-02 8.34E+09 7.13E+02 4.57E+01 3.00E+08 2.31E-39 3.57E+09
F2
STD 3.11E-48 7.03E+01 1.70E+10 1.70E+01 4.84E+01 1.93E-03 1.70E+10 3.76E+01 2.05E+00 1.58E+09 1.63E-39 1.70E+10
AVG 6.54E-37 5.79E+06 1.13E+07 2.98E+06 5.34E+05 3.34E+05 3.37E+07 1.19E+06 2.03E+02 4.90E+06 1.06E+00 1.20E+07
F3
STD 3.58E-36 9.08E+05 1.43E+06 3.87E+05 1.34E+05 7.95E+04 1.41E+07 1.88E+05 2.72E+01 1.02E+06 3.70E+00 1.49E+06
AVG 1.29E-47 9.59E+01 8.18E+01 9.35E+01 4.52E+01 6.51E+01 9.82E+01 5.00E+01 4.06E-01 9.88E+01 4.02E-31 9.92E+01
F4
STD 4.11E-47 1.20E+00 1.49E+00 9.05E-01 4.28E+00 5.72E+00 3.32E-01 1.73E+00 3.03E-02 4.15E-01 2.67E-31 2.33E-01
AVG 3.10E-01 1.79E+09 1.84E+09 2.07E+08 3.30E+07 4.98E+02 6.94E+09 2.56E+07 1.21E+03 5.01E+09 4.97E+02 4.57E+09
F5
STD 3.73E-01 4.11E+08 1.11E+08 2.08E+07 8.76E+06 5.23E-01 2.23E+08 6.14E+06 7.04E+01 2.50E+08 3.07E-01 1.25E+09
AVG 2.94E-03 6.27E+05 6.57E+05 1.68E+05 8.01E+04 9.22E+01 1.53E+06 6.30E+04 8.27E+01 1.16E+06 7.82E+01 7.23E+05
F6
STD 3.98E-03 7.43E+04 3.29E+04 8.23E+03 9.32E+03 2.15E+00 3.37E+04 8.91E+03 2.24E+00 3.48E+04 2.50E+00 3.28E+04
AVG 2.51E-04 9.10E+03 1.43E+04 2.62E+03 2.53E+02 4.67E-02 2.23E+04 3.71E+02 8.05E+01 3.84E+04 1.71E-03 2.39E+04
F7
STD 2.43E-04 2.20E+03 1.51E+03 3.59E+02 6.28E+01 1.12E-02 1.15E+03 6.74E+01 1.37E+01 2.24E+03 4.80E-04 2.72E+03
AVG -2.09E+05 -1.31E+05 -1.65E+04 -1.42E+05 -3.00E+04 -5.70E+04 -9.03E+03 -7.27E+04 -2.10E+17 -6.29E+04 -5.02E+04 -2.67E+04
F8
STD 2.84E+01 2.31E+04 9.99E+02 1.98E+03 1.14E+03 3.12E+03 2.12E+03 1.15E+04 1.14E+18 5.71E+03 1.00E+04 1.38E+03
AVG 0.00E+00 3.29E+03 6.63E+03 7.86E+02 4.96E+03 7.84E+01 6.18E+03 2.80E+03 2.54E+03 6.96E+03 0.00E+00 7.14E+03
F9
STD 0.00E+00 1.96E+02 1.07E+02 3.42E+01 7.64E+01 3.13E+01 1.20E+02 1.42E+02 5.21E+01 1.48E+02 0.00E+00 1.05E+02
AVG 8.88E-16 1.96E+01 1.97E+01 1.44E+01 8.55E+00 1.93E-03 2.04E+01 1.24E+01 1.07E+00 2.03E+01 7.62E-01 2.06E+01
F10
STD 4.01E-31 2.04E-01 1.04E-01 2.22E-01 8.66E-01 3.50E-04 3.25E-02 4.46E-01 6.01E-02 1.48E-01 2.33E+00 2.45E-01
AVG 0.00E+00 5.42E+03 5.94E+03 1.47E+03 6.88E+02 1.55E-02 1.38E+04 5.83E+02 2.66E-02 1.03E+04 0.00E+00 6.75E+03
F11
STD 0.00E+00 7.32E+02 3.19E+02 8.10E+01 8.17E+01 3.50E-02 3.19E+02 7.33E+01 2.30E-03 4.43E+02 0.00E+00 2.97E+02
AVG 1.41E-06 2.79E+09 3.51E+09 1.60E+08 4.50E+06 7.42E-01 1.70E+10 8.67E+05 3.87E-01 1.20E+10 4.61E-01 1.60E+10
F12
STD 1.48E-06 1.11E+09 4.16E+08 3.16E+07 3.37E+06 4.38E-02 6.29E+08 6.23E+05 2.47E-02 6.82E+08 2.40E-02 2.34E+09
AVG 3.44E-04 8.84E+09 6.82E+09 5.13E+08 3.94E+07 5.06E+01 3.17E+10 2.29E+07 6.00E+01 2.23E+10 4.98E+01 2.42E+10
F13
STD 4.75E-04 2.00E+09 8.45E+08 6.59E+07 1.87E+07 1.30E+00 9.68E+08 9.46E+06 1.13E+00 1.13E+09 9.97E-03 6.39E+09

Table 6: Results of benchmark functions (F1-F13), with 1000 dimensions.

Benchmark HHO GA PSO BBO FPA GWO BAT FA CS MFO TLBO DE
AVG 1.06E-94 1.36E+06 1.36E+06 6.51E+05 1.70E+05 2.42E-01 3.12E+06 3.20E+05 1.65E+01 2.73E+06 2.73E-76 2.16E+06
F1
STD 4.97E-94 1.79E+05 6.33E+04 2.37E+04 2.99E+04 4.72E-02 4.61E+04 2.11E+04 1.27E+00 4.70E+04 7.67E-76 3.39E+05
AVG 2.52E-50 4.29E+03 1.79E+10 1.96E+03 8.34E+02 7.11E-01 1.79E+10 1.79E+10 1.02E+02 1.79E+10 1.79E+10 1.79E+10
F2
STD 5.02E-50 8.86E+01 1.79E+10 2.18E+01 8.96E+01 4.96E-01 1.79E+10 1.79E+10 3.49E+00 1.79E+10 1.79E+10 1.79E+10
AVG 1.79E-17 2.29E+07 3.72E+07 9.92E+06 1.95E+06 1.49E+06 1.35E+08 4.95E+06 8.67E+02 1.94E+07 8.61E-01 5.03E+07
F3
STD 9.81E-17 3.93E+06 1.16E+07 1.48E+06 4.20E+05 2.43E+05 4.76E+07 7.19E+05 1.10E+02 3.69E+06 1.33E+00 4.14E+06
AVG 1.43E-46 9.79E+01 8.92E+01 9.73E+01 5.03E+01 7.94E+01 9.89E+01 6.06E+01 4.44E-01 9.96E+01 1.01E-30 9.95E+01
F4
STD 7.74E-46 7.16E-01 2.39E+00 7.62E-01 5.37E+00 2.77E+00 2.22E-01 2.69E+00 2.24E-02 1.49E-01 5.25E-31 1.43E-01
AVG 5.73E-01 4.73E+09 3.72E+09 1.29E+09 7.27E+07 1.06E+03 1.45E+10 2.47E+08 2.68E+03 1.25E+10 9.97E+02 1.49E+10
F5
STD 1.40E+00 9.63E+08 2.76E+08 6.36E+07 1.84E+07 3.07E+01 3.20E+08 3.24E+07 1.27E+02 3.15E+08 2.01E-01 3.06E+08
AVG 3.61E-03 1.52E+06 1.38E+06 6.31E+05 1.60E+05 2.03E+02 3.11E+06 3.18E+05 2.07E+02 2.73E+06 1.93E+02 2.04E+06
F6
STD 5.38E-03 1.88E+05 6.05E+04 1.82E+04 1.86E+04 2.45E+00 6.29E+04 2.47E+04 4.12E+00 4.56E+04 2.35E+00 2.46E+05
AVG 1.41E-04 4.45E+04 6.26E+04 3.84E+04 1.09E+03 1.47E-01 1.25E+05 4.44E+03 4.10E+02 1.96E+05 1.83E-03 2.27E+05
F7
STD 1.63E-04 8.40E+03 4.16E+03 2.91E+03 3.49E+02 3.28E-02 3.93E+03 4.00E+02 8.22E+01 6.19E+03 5.79E-04 3.52E+04
AVG -4.19E+05 -1.94E+05 -2.30E+04 -2.29E+05 -4.25E+04 -8.64E+04 -1.48E+04 -1.08E+05 -9.34E+14 -9.00E+04 -6.44E+04 -3.72E+04
F8
STD 1.03E+02 9.74E+03 1.70E+03 3.76E+03 1.47E+03 1.91E+04 3.14E+03 1.69E+04 2.12E+15 7.20E+03 1.92E+04 1.23E+03
AVG 0.00E+00 8.02E+03 1.35E+04 2.86E+03 1.01E+04 2.06E+02 1.40E+04 7.17E+03 6.05E+03 1.56E+04 0.00E+00 1.50E+04
F9
STD 0.00E+00 3.01E+02 1.83E+02 9.03E+01 1.57E+02 4.81E+01 1.85E+02 1.88E+02 1.41E+02 1.94E+02 0.00E+00 1.79E+02
AVG 8.88E-16 1.95E+01 1.98E+01 1.67E+01 8.62E+00 1.88E-02 2.07E+01 1.55E+01 1.18E+00 2.04E+01 5.09E-01 2.07E+01
F10
STD 4.01E-31 2.55E-01 1.24E-01 8.63E-02 9.10E-01 2.74E-03 2.23E-02 2.42E-01 5.90E-02 2.16E-01 1.94E+00 1.06E-01
AVG 0.00E+00 1.26E+04 1.23E+04 5.75E+03 1.52E+03 6.58E-02 2.83E+04 2.87E+03 3.92E-02 2.47E+04 1.07E-16 1.85E+04
F11
STD 0.00E+00 1.63E+03 5.18E+02 1.78E+02 2.66E+02 8.82E-02 4.21E+02 1.78E+02 3.58E-03 4.51E+02 2.03E-17 2.22E+03
AVG 1.02E-06 1.14E+10 7.73E+09 1.56E+09 8.11E+06 1.15E+00 3.63E+10 6.76E+07 6.53E-01 3.04E+10 6.94E-01 3.72E+10
F12
STD 1.16E-06 1.27E+09 6.72E+08 1.46E+08 3.46E+06 1.82E-01 1.11E+09 1.80E+07 2.45E-02 9.72E+08 1.90E-02 7.67E+08
AVG 8.41E-04 1.91E+10 1.58E+10 4.17E+09 8.96E+07 1.21E+02 6.61E+10 4.42E+08 1.32E+02 5.62E+10 9.98E+01 6.66E+10
F13
STD 1.18E-03 4.21E+09 1.56E+09 2.54E+08 3.65E+07 1.11E+01 1.40E+09 7.91E+07 1.48E+00 1.76E+09 1.31E-02 2.26E+09

20
 Table 7: Comparison of average running time results (seconds) over 30 runs for larger-scale problems with 1000
variables

ID Mertic HHO GA PSO BBO FPA GWO BAT FA CS MFO TLBO DE

F1 AVG 2.03E+00 8.27E+01 8.29E+01 1.17E+02 2.13E+00 4.47E+00 1.60E+00 5.62E+00 5.47E+00 3.23E+00 2.21E+00 2.38E+00
STD 4.04E-01 5.13E+00 4.04E+00 6.04E+00 2.62E-01 2.64E-01 2.08E-01 4.42E-01 4.00E-01 2.06E-01 3.62E-01 2.70E-01
F2 AVG 1.70E+00 8.41E+01 8.28E+01 1.16E+02 2.09E+00 4.37E+00 1.61E+00 2.57E+00 5.50E+00 3.25E+00 1.99E+00 2.28E+00
STD 7.37E-02 4.65E+00 4.08E+00 6.28E+00 8.64E-02 1.29E-01 1.02E-01 3.93E-01 3.48E-01 1.56E-01 1.19E-01 1.16E-01
F3 AVG 1.17E+02 1.32E+02 1.30E+02 1.65E+02 5.10E+01 5.20E+01 5.23E+01 3.70E+01 1.02E+02 5.11E+01 9.76E+01 5.04E+01
STD 5.28E+00 5.68E+00 5.73E+00 7.56E+00 2.01E+00 1.93E+00 2.25E+00 1.49E+00 3.73E+00 2.00E+00 3.87E+00 1.98E+00
F4 AVG 2.05E+00 8.14E+01 8.24E+01 1.18E+02 1.90E+00 4.27E+00 1.44E+00 5.43E+00 5.14E+00 3.14E+00 1.87E+00 2.21E+00
STD 7.40E-02 3.73E+00 3.91E+00 5.48E+00 5.83E-02 1.36E-01 1.02E-01 2.76E-01 2.33E-01 9.28E-02 1.05E-01 8.73E-02
F5 AVG 2.95E+00 8.16E+01 8.33E+01 1.17E+02 2.04E+00 4.46E+00 1.65E+00 5.61E+00 5.49E+00 3.31E+00 2.23E+00 2.38E+00
STD 8.36E-02 4.13E+00 4.36E+00 5.91E+00 7.79E-02 1.39E-01 1.16E-01 3.01E-01 2.74E-01 1.27E-01 1.09E-01 1.30E-01
F6 AVG 2.49E+00 8.08E+01 8.26E+01 1.17E+02 1.88E+00 4.29E+00 1.47E+00 5.51E+00 5.17E+00 3.13E+00 1.89E+00 2.19E+00
STD 8.25E-02 3.96E+00 3.95E+00 5.69E+00 4.98E-02 1.07E-01 1.03E-01 2.87E-01 2.35E-01 1.00E-01 9.33E-02 1.02E-01
F7 AVG 8.20E+00 8.26E+01 8.52E+01 1.18E+02 4.79E+00 7.08E+00 4.22E+00 6.89E+00 1.08E+01 5.83E+00 7.23E+00 4.95E+00
STD 1.69E-01 4.56E+00 3.94E+00 6.10E+00 1.02E-01 7.56E-02 8.98E-02 2.02E-01 3.86E-01 1.01E-01 1.31E-01 1.43E-01
F8 AVG 4.86E+00 8.47E+01 8.36E+01 1.18E+02 3.18E+00 5.21E+00 2.45E+00 6.04E+00 7.69E+00 4.05E+00 3.84E+00 3.23E+00
STD 1.03E+00 3.68E+00 3.80E+00 5.52E+00 4.73E-01 1.78E-01 2.88E-01 2.69E-01 3.86E-01 1.20E-01 4.12E-01 8.69E-02
F9 AVG 3.77E+00 8.09E+01 8.33E+01 1.15E+02 2.84E+00 4.72E+00 2.33E+00 5.89E+00 6.90E+00 3.94E+00 2.70E+00 3.20E+00
STD 8.87E-01 3.59E+00 3.88E+00 5.94E+00 4.30E-01 1.19E-01 2.88E-01 2.55E-01 3.34E-01 1.26E-01 4.71E-01 5.50E-01
F10 AVG 3.75E+00 8.24E+01 8.36E+01 1.17E+02 2.96E+00 4.80E+00 2.46E+00 5.98E+00 6.56E+00 4.04E+00 2.84E+00 3.41E+00
STD 8.75E-01 4.02E+00 3.99E+00 5.90E+00 3.74E-01 1.14E-01 4.67E-01 2.91E-01 3.51E-01 1.21E-01 5.39E-01 3.01E-01
F11 AVG 4.17E+00 8.23E+01 8.38E+01 1.18E+02 3.16E+00 4.95E+00 2.61E+00 6.03E+00 6.43E+00 4.22E+00 3.03E+00 3.38E+00
STD 5.56E-01 4.41E+00 3.97E+00 6.02E+00 5.50E-01 8.65E-02 3.95E-01 2.50E-01 3.01E-01 1.20E-01 3.95E-01 9.95E-02
F12 AVG 1.90E+01 8.64E+01 8.85E+01 1.23E+02 9.09E+00 1.06E+01 8.66E+00 9.17E+00 1.90E+01 9.67E+00 1.53E+01 9.14E+00
STD 3.31E+00 4.47E+00 4.42E+00 6.20E+00 1.39E+00 4.33E-01 1.47E+00 3.62E-01 3.53E+00 4.04E-01 2.54E+00 1.14E+00
F13 AVG 1.89E+01 8.64E+01 8.90E+01 1.23E+02 9.28E+00 1.05E+01 8.74E+00 9.24E+00 1.83E+01 9.66E+00 1.46E+01 9.34E+00
STD 1.56E+00 4.40E+00 4.20E+00 6.29E+00 1.50E+00 4.56E-01 1.38E+00 3.94E-01 7.75E-01 3.91E-01 2.24E+00 1.24E+00

335 always achieved to the best results on F14-F23 problems in comparison with other approaches.
336 Based on results for F24-F29 hybrid CM functions in Table 8, the HHO is capable of achieving to
337 high-quality solutions and outperforming other competitors. The p-values in Table 24 also confirm
338 the meaningful advantage of HHO compared to other optimizers for the majority of cases.

Table 8: Results of benchmark functions (F14-F29)

Benchmark HHO GA PSO BBO FPA GWO BAT FA CS MFO TLBO DE
AVG 9.98E-01 9.98E-01 1.39E+00 9.98E-01 9.98E-01 4.17E+00 1.27E+01 3.51E+00 1.27E+01 2.74E+00 9.98E-01 1.23E+00
F14
STD 9.23E-01 4.52E-16 4.60E-01 4.52E-16 2.00E-04 3.61E+00 6.96E+00 2.16E+00 1.81E-15 1.82E+00 4.52E-16 9.23E-01
AVG 3.10E-04 3.33E-02 1.61E-03 1.66E-02 6.88E-04 6.24E-03 3.00E-02 1.01E-03 3.13E-04 2.35E-03 1.03E-03 5.63E-04
F15
STD 1.97E-04 2.70E-02 4.60E-04 8.60E-03 1.55E-04 1.25E-02 3.33E-02 4.01E-04 2.99E-05 4.92E-03 3.66E-03 2.81E-04
AVG -1.03E+00 -3.78E-01 -1.03E+00 -8.30E-01 -1.03E+00 -1.03E+00 -6.87E-01 -1.03E+00 -1.03E+00 -1.03E+00 -1.03E+00 -1.03E+00
F16
STD 6.78E-16 3.42E-01 2.95E-03 3.16E-01 6.78E-16 6.78E-16 8.18E-01 6.78E-16 6.78E-16 6.78E-16 6.78E-16 6.78E-16
AVG 3.98E-01 5.24E-01 4.00E-01 5.49E-01 3.98E-01 3.98E-01 3.98E-01 3.98E-01 3.98E-01 3.98E-01 3.98E-01 3.98E-01
F17
STD 2.54E-06 6.06E-02 1.39E-03 6.05E-02 1.69E-16 1.69E-16 1.58E-03 1.69E-16 1.69E-16 1.69E-16 1.69E-16 1.69E-16
AVG 3.00E+00 3.00E+00 3.10E+00 3.00E+00 3.00E+00 3.00E+00 1.47E+01 3.00E+00 3.00E+00 3.00E+00 3.00E+00 3.00E+00
F18
STD 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 7.60E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.07E-05 2.21E+01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
AVG -3.86E+00 -3.42E+00 -3.86E+00 -3.78E+00 -3.86E+00 -3.86E+00 -3.84E+00 -3.86E+00 -3.86E+00 -3.86E+00 -3.86E+00 -3.86E+00
F19
STD 2.44E-03 3.03E-01 1.24E-03 1.26E-01 3.16E-15 3.14E-03 1.41E-01 3.16E-15 3.16E-15 1.44E-03 3.16E-15 3.16E-15
AVG -3.322 -1.61351 -3.11088 -2.70774 -3.2951 -3.25866 -3.2546 -3.28105 -3.322 -3.23509 -3.24362 -3.27048
F20
STD 0.137406 0.46049 0.029126 0.357832 0.019514 0.064305 0.058943 0.063635 1.77636E-15 0.064223 0.15125 0.058919
AVG -10.1451 -6.66177 -4.14764 -8.31508 -5.21514 -8.64121 -4.2661 -7.67362 -5.0552 -6.8859 -8.64525 -9.64796
F21
STD 0.885673 3.732521 0.919578 2.883867 0.008154 2.563356 2.554009 3.50697 1.77636E-15 3.18186 1.76521 1.51572
AVG -10.4015 -5.58399 -6.01045 -9.38408 -5.34373 -10.4014 -5.60638 -9.63827 -5.0877 -8.26492 -10.2251 -9.74807
F22
STD 1.352375 2.605837 1.962628 2.597238 0.053685 0.000678 3.022612 2.293901 8.88178E-16 3.076809 0.007265 1.987703
AVG -10.5364 -4.69882 -4.72192 -6.2351 -5.29437 -10.0836 -3.97284 -9.75489 -5.1285 -7.65923 -10.0752 -10.5364
F23
STD 0.927655 3.256702 1.742618 3.78462 0.356377 1.721889 3.008279 2.345487 1.77636E-15 3.576927 1.696222 8.88E-15
AVG 396.8256 626.8389 768.1775 493.0129 518.7886 486.5743 1291.474 471.9752 469.0141 412.4627 612.5569 431.0767
F24
STD 79.58214 101.2255 76.09641 102.6058 47.84199 142.9028 150.4189 252.1018 60.62538 68.38819 123.2403 64.1864
AVG 910 999.4998 1184.819 935.4693 1023.799 985.4172 1463.423 953.8902 910.1008 947.9322 967.088 917.6204
F25
STD 0 29.44366 33.02676 9.61349 31.85965 29.95368 68.41612 11.74911 0.036659 27.06628 27.39906 1.052473
AVG 910 998.9091 1178.34 934.2718 1018.002 973.5362 1480.683 953.5493 910.1252 940.1221 983.774 917.346
F26
STD 0 25.27817 35.20755 8.253209 34.87908 22.45008 45.55006 14.086 0.047205 21.68256 45.32275 0.897882
AVG 910 1002.032 1195.088 939.7644 1010.392 969.8538 1477.919 947.7667 910.1233 945.4266 978.7344 917.3067
F27
STD 0 26.66321 23.97978 23.07814 31.51188 19.51721 60.58827 11.18408 0.049732 26.79031 38.22729 0.861945
AVG 860.8925 1512.467 1711.981 1068.631 1539.357 1337.671 1961.526 1016.389 1340.078 1455.918 1471.879 1553.993
F28
STD 0.651222 94.64553 35.18377 201.9045 42.93441 191.0662 58.46188 270.6854 134.183 36.06884 268.6238 96.35255
AVG 558.9653 1937.396 2101.145 1897.439 2033.614 1909.091 2221.404 1986.206 1903.852 1882.974 1883.773 1897.031
F29
STD 5.112352 11.25913 29.74533 8.823239 30.2875 6.567542 35.54849 18.88722 185.7944 6.528261 3.493192 4.203909

339 4.6 Engineering benchmark sets

340 In this section, the proposed HHO is applied to six well-known benchmark engineering prob-
341 lems. Tackling engineering design tasks using P-metaheuristics is a well-regarded research direc-
342 tion in the previous works [60, 61]. The results of HHO is compared to various conventional and
343 modified optimizers proposed in previous studies. Table 9 tabulates the details of the tackled
344 engineering design tasks.

21
 Table 9: Brief description of the tackled engineering design tasks. (D: dimension, CV: continuous variables,
DV:Discrete variables, NC: Number of constraints, AC: Active constraints, F/S: ratio of the feasible solutions in
the solution domain (F) to the whole search domain(S), OB: Objective.)

No. Name D CV DV NC AC F/S OB

1 Three-bar truss 2 2 0 3 NA NA Minimize weight
2 Tension/compression spring 3 3 0 4 2 0.01 Minimize weight
3 Pressure vessel 4 2 2 4 2 0.40 Minimize cost
4 Welded beam 4 4 0 7 2 0.035 Minimize cost
5 Multi-plate disc clutch brake 5 0 5 8 1 0.700 Minimize weight
6 Rolling element bearing 10 9 1 9 4 0.015 Maximize dynamic load

345 4.6.1 Three-bar truss design problem

346 This problem can be regarded as one of the most studied cases in previous works [62]. This
347 problem can be described mathematically as follows:

−
→
Consider X = [x1 x2 ] = [A1 A2 ],
−
→ ( √ )
Minimise f ( X ) = 2 2X1 + X2 × 1,
√
−
→ 2x1 + x2
Subject to g1 ( X ) = √ 2 P − σ ≤ 0,
2x1 + 2x1 x2
−
→ x2
g2 ( X ) = √ 2 P − σ ≤ 0,
2x1 + 2x1 x2
−
→ 1
g3 ( X ) = √ P − σ ≤ 0,
2x2 + x1
Variable range 0 ≤ x1 , x2 ≤ 1,
where 1 = 100 cm, P = 2 KN / cm2 , σ = 2 KN / cm2

348 Figure 13 demonstrates the shape of the formulated truss and the related forces on this struc-
349 ture. With regard to Fig. 13 and the formulation, we have two parameters: the area of bars 1 and
350 3 and area of bar 2. The objective of this task is to minimize the total weight of the structure. In
351 addition, this design case has several constraints including stress, deflection, and buckling.

1 2 3

A2
D

A1 A3
4 A1=A3
P

Figure 13: Three-bar truss design problem

352 The HHO is applied to this case based on 30 independent runs with 30 hawks and 500 iterations
353 in each run. Since this benchmark case has some constraints, we need to integrate the HHO with

22
354 a constraint handling technique. For the sake of simplicity, we used a barrier penalty approach
355 [63] in the HHO. The results of HHO are compared to those reported for DEDS [64], MVO [65],
356 GOA [62], MFO [56], PSO-DE [66], SSA [60], MBA [67], Tsa [68], Ray and Sain [69], and CS [34]
357 in previous literature. Table 10 shows the detailed results of the proposed HHO compared to other
358 techniques. Based on the results in Table 10, it is observed that HHO can reveal very competitive
359 results compared to DEDS, PSO-DE, and SSA algorithms. Additionally, the HHO outperforms
360 other optimizers significantly. The results obtained show that the HHO is capable of dealing with
361 a constrained space.
Table 10: Comparison of results for three-bar truss design problem.

Algorithm Optimal values for variables Optimal weight

x1 x2
HHO 0.788662816 0.408283133832900 263.8958434
DEDS [64] 0.78867513 0.40824828 263.8958434
MVO [65] 0.78860276 0.408453070000000 263.8958499
GOA [62] 0.788897555578973 0.407619570115153 263.895881496069
MFO [56] 0.788244771 0.409466905784741 263.8959797
PSO-DE [66] 0.7886751 0.4082482 263.8958433
SSA [60] 0.788665414 0.408275784444547 263.8958434
MBA [67] 0.7885650 0.4085597 263.8958522
Tsa [68] 0.788 0.408 263.68
Ray and Sain [69] 0.795 0.395 264.3
CS [34] 0.78867 0.40902 263.9716

362 4.6.2 Tension/compression spring design

363 In this case, our intention is to minimize the weight of a spring. Design variables for this
364 case are wire diameter (d), mean coil diameter (D), and the number of active coils (N ). For this
365 case, the constraints on shear stress, surge frequency, and minimum deflection should be satisfied
366 during the weight optimization. The objective and constraints of this problem can be formulated
367 as follows:

Consider−→
z = [z1 z2 z3 ] = [dDN ],
Minimizef (−
→z ) = (z3 + 2)z2 z12 ,
Subject to
z23 z3
g1 (−
→
z )=1− ≤ 0,
71785z14
4z22 − z1 z2 1
g2 (−
→
z)= + ≤ 0,
12566(z2 z1 − z1 ) 5108z12
3 4

140.45z1
g3 (−
→
z )=1− ≤0
z22 z3
z1 + z2
g4 (−
→
z)= − 1 ≤ 0,
1.5
368 There are several optimizers previously applied to this case such as the SSA [60], TEO [70],
369 MFO [56], SFS [71], GWO [55], WOA [18], method presented by Arora [72], GA2 [73], GA3 [74],
370 method presented by Belegundu [75], CPSO [76], DEDS [64], GSA [25], DELC [77], HEAA [78],
371 WEO [79], BA [80], ESs [81], Rank-iMDDE [82], CWCA [14], and WCA [61]. The results of HHO
372 are compared to the aforementioned techniques in Table 11.

23
 Table 11: Comparison of results for tension/compression spring problem.

Algorithms d D N Optimal cost

HHO 0.051796393 0.359305355 11.138859 0.012665443
SSA [60] 0.051207 0.345215 12.004032 0.0126763
TEO [70] 0.051775 0.3587919 11.16839 0.012665
MFO [56] 0.051994457 0.36410932 10.868422 0.0126669
SFS [71] 0.051689061 0.356717736 11.288966 0.012665233
GWO [55] 0.05169 0.356737 11.28885 0.012666
WOA [18] 0 .051207 0 .345215 12 .004032 0 .0126763
Arora [72] 0.053396 0.399180 9.185400 0.012730
GA2 [73] 0.051480 0.351661 11.632201 0.012704
GA3 [74] 0.051989 0.363965 10.890522 0.012681
Belegundu [75] 0.05 0.315900 14.250000 0.012833
CPSO [76] 0.051728 0.357644 11.244543 0.012674
DEDS [64] 0.051689 0.356717 11.288965 0.012665
GSA [25] 0.050276 0.323680 13.525410 0.012702
DELC [77] 0.051689 0.356717 11.288965 0.012665
HEAA [78] 0.051689 0.356729 11.288293 0.012665
WEO [79] 0.051685 0.356630 11.294103 0.012665
BA [80] 0.05169 0.35673 11.2885 0.012665
ESs [81] 0.051643 0.355360 11.397926 0.012698
Rank-iMDDE [82] 0.051689 0.35671718 11.288999 0.012665
CWCA [14] 0.051709 0.35710734 11.270826 0.012672
WCA [61] 0.05168 0.356522 11.30041 0.012665

373 Table 11 shows that the proposed HHO can achieve to high quality solutions very effectively
374 when tackling this benchmark problem and it exposes the best design. It is evident that results
375 of HHO are very competitive to those of SFS and TEO.

376 4.6.3 Pressure vessel design problem

In this well-regarded case, we minimize the fabrication cost and it has four parameters and
constraints. The variables of this case are (x1 - x4 ): Ts (x1 , thickness of the shell), Th (x2 ,
thickness of the head), r (x3 , inner radius), L (x4 , length of the section without the head). The
overall configuration of this problem is shown in Fig. 14. The formulation of this test case is as

Th Ts
AA

B
B
O
O
B
B

B
B

2r
O

O
O

O
O11
O
11

AA

Figure 14: Pressure vessel problem

24
 follows:

Consider− →z = [z1 z2 z3 z4 ] = [Ts Th RL],

Minimizef (− →
z ) = 0.6224z1 z3 z4 + 1.7781z2 z23 + 3.1661z12 z4 + 19.84z12 z3 ,
Subject to
g1 (−
→z ) = −z1 + 0.0193z3 ≤ 0,
−
→
g2 ( z ) = −z3 + 0.00954z3 ≤ 0,
4
g3 (−
→z ) = −Πz32 z4 − Πz33 + 1, 296, 000 ≤ 0,
3
g4 (−
→z ) = z4 − 240 ≤ 0,

377 The design space for this case is limited to: 0 ≤ z1 , z2 ≤ 99, 0 ≤ z3 , z4 ≤ 200. The results of
378 HHO are compared to those of GWO [55], GA [73], HPSO [83], G-QPSO [84], WEO [79], IACO
379 [85], BA [80], MFO [56], CSS [86], ESs [81], CPSO [76], BIANCA [87], MDDE [88], DELC [77],
380 WOA [18], GA3 [74], Lagrangian multiplier (Kannan) [18], and Branch-bound (Sandgren) [18].
381 Table 12 reports the optimum designs attained by HHO and listed optimizers. Inspecting the
382 results in Table 12, we detected that the HHO is the best optimizer in dealing with problems and
383 can attain superior results compared to other techniques.

Table 12: Comparison of results for pressure vessel design problem

Algorithms Ts (x1 ) Th (x2 ) R(x3 ) L(x4 ) Optimal cost
HHO 0.81758383 0.4072927 42.09174576 176.7196352 6000.46259
GWO [55] 0.8125 0.4345 42.089181 176.758731 6051.5639
GA [73] 0.812500 0.437500 42.097398 176.654050 6059.9463
HPSO [83] 0.812500 0.437500 42.0984 176.6366 6059.7143
G-QPSO [84] 0.812500 0.437500 42.0984 176.6372 6059.7208
WEO [79] 0.812500 0.437500 42.098444 176.636622 6059.71
IACO [85] 0.812500 0.437500 42.098353 176.637751 6059.7258
BA [80] 0.812500 0.437500 42.098445 176.636595 6059.7143
MFO [56] 0.8125 0.4375 42.098445 176.636596 6059.7143
CSS [86] 0.812500 0.437500 42.103624 176.572656 6059.0888
ESs [81] 0.812500 0.437500 42.098087 176.640518 6059.7456
CPSO [76] 0.812500 0.437500 42.091266 176.746500 6061.0777
BIANCA [87] 0.812500 0.437500 42.096800 176.6580 0 0 6059.9384
MDDE [88] 0.812500 0.437500 42.098446 176.636047 6059.701660
DELC [77] 0.812500 0.437500 42.0984456 176.6365958 6059.7143
WOA [18] 0 .812500 0 .437500 42 .0982699 176 .638998 6059 .7410
GA3 [74] 0.812500 0.437500 42.0974 176.6540 6059.9463
Lagrangian multiplier (Kannan) [18] 1.125000 0.625000 58.291000 43.6900000 7198 .0428
Branch-bound (Sandgren) [18] 1.125000 0.625000 47.700000 117.701000 8129.1036

384 4.6.4 Welded beam design problem

385 Purpose of the well-known engineering case is to discover the best manufacturing cost with
386 regard to a series of design constraints. A schematic view of this problem is illustrated in Fig. 15.
387 The design variables are thickness of weld (h), length (l), height (t), and thickness of the bar (b).
388 This case can be formulated as follows:

25
 l h t
P

b
L
Figure 15: Welded beam design problem

Consider− →z = [z1 , z2 , z3 , z4 ] = [h, l, t, b],

Minimizef (− →z ) = 1.10471z12 z2 + 0.04811z3 z4 (14.0 + z2 ),
Subject to
g1 (−
→z ) = τ (−
→z ) − τmax ≤ 0,
−
→ −
→
g2 ( z ) = σ( z ) − σmax ≤ 0,
g3 (−
→z ) = δ(−→
z ) − δmax ≤ 0,
−
→
g4 ( z ) = z1 − z4 ≤ 0,
g5 (−
→z ) = P − Pc (− →z ) ≤ 0,
−
→
g6 ( z ) = 0.125 − z1 ≤ 0,
g7 (−
→z ) = 1.10471z12 + 0.04811z3 z4 (14.0 + z2 ) − 5.0 ≤ 0,
Variable range
0.05 ≤ z1 ≤ 2.00, 0.25 ≤ z2 ≤ 1.30, 2.00 ≤ z3 ≤ 15.0,
where
√ (
−
→ ′2 ′ ′′
z2 ′′2 ′ P ′′ MR z2 )
τ ( z ) = τ + 2τ τ + τ ,τ = √ ,τ = ,M = P L + ,
2R 2z1 z2 J 2
√ { [ 2 ]}
z22 z1 + z3 2 √ z2 z1 + z3 2 6P L
R= +( ) ,J = 2 2z1 z2 +( ) , σ(−
→
z)= ,
4 2 12 2 z4 z32
√
z2 z6 ( √ )
−
→ 4P L3 −
→ 4.013E 3364 z3 E
δ( z ) = 3
, Pc ( z ) = 2
1− ,
Ez3 z4 L 2L 4G
P = 6000lb, L = 14in, E = 30 × 106 psi, G = 12 × 106 psi,

389 The optimal results of HHO versus those attained by RANDOM [89], DAVID [89], SIMPLEX
390 [89], APPROX [89], GA1 [73], GA2 [63], HS [90], GSA [18], ESs [81], and CDE [91] are represented
391 in Table 13. From Table 13, it can be seen that the proposed HHO can reveal the best design
392 settings with the minimum fitness value compared to other optimizers.

393 4.6.5 Multi-plate disc clutch brake

394 In this discrete benchmark task, the intention is to optimize the total weight of a multiple
395 disc clutch brake with regard to five variables: actuating force, inner and outer radius, number of

26
 Table 13: Comparison of results for welded beam design problem

Algorithm h l t b Optimal cost

HHO 0.204039 3.531061 9.027463 0.206147 1.73199057
RANDOM [89] 0.4575 4.7313 5.0853 0.66 4.1185
DAVID [89] 0.2434 6.2552 8.2915 0.2444 2.3841
SIMPLEX [89] 0.2792 5.6256 7.7512 0.2796 2.5307
APPROX [89] 0.24 4 4 6.2189 8.2915 0.2444 2.3815
GA1 [73] 0.248900 6.173000 8.178900 0.253300 2.433116
GA2 [63] 0.208800 3.420500 8.997500 0.210000 1.748310
HS [90] 0.2442 6.2231 8.2915 0.2443 2.3807
GSA [18] 0.182129 3.856979 10 0.202376 1.879952
ESs [81] 0.199742 3.61206 9.0375 0.206082 1.7373
CDE [91] 0.203137 3.542998 9.033498 0.206179 1.733462

396 friction surfaces, and thickness of discs [92].

397 This problem has eight constraints according to the conditions of geometry and operating re-
398 quirements. The feasible area for this case includes practically 70% of the solution space. However,
399 there are few works that considered this problem in their tests. The optimal results of proposed
400 HHO in compared to those revealed by TLBO [93], WCA [61], and PVS [92] algorithms. Table
401 14 shows the attained results of different optimizers for this test case. From Table 14, we can
402 recognize that the HHO attains the best rank and can outperform the well-known TLBO, WCA,
403 and PVS in terms of quality of solutions.

f (x) = Π(ro2 − ri2 )t(Z + 1)ρ

subject to:
g1 (x) = ro − ri − ∆r ≥ 0
g2 (x) = lmax − (Z + 1)(t + δ) ≥ 0
g3 (x) = Pmax − Prz ≥ 0
g4 (x) = Pmax vsr max − Prz νsr ≥ 0
g5 (x) = vsr max − vsr ≥ 0
g6 = Tmax − T ≥ 0
g7 (x) = Mh − sMs ≥ 0
g8 (x) = T ≥ 0
where,
2 r3 − ri2 F
Mh = µF Z o2 3
, Prz = ,
3 ro − ri Π(ro − ri2 )
2

2Πn(ro3 − ri3 ) Iz Πn
vrz = 2 2
, T =
90 (ro − ri ) 30(Mh + Mf )
∆r = 20 mm, Iz = 55 kgmm2 , Pmax = 1 M P a, Fmax = 1000 N,
Tmax = 15 s, µ = 0.5, s = 1.5, Ms = 40 N m, Mf = 3 N m, n = 250 rpm,
vsr max = 10m / s, lmax = 30 mm, ri min = 60, ri max = 80, ro min = 90,
ro max = 110, tmin = 1.5, tmax = 3, Fmin = 600, Fmax = 1000, Zmin = 2, Zmax = 9,

27
 Table 14: Comparison of results for multi-plate disc clutch brake

Algorithm ri r0 t F Z Optimal cost

HHO 69.9999999992493 90 1 1000 2.312781994 0.259768993
TLBO [93] 70 90 1 810 3 0.313656
WCA [61] 70 90 1 910 3 0.313656
PVS [92] 70 90 1 980 3 0.31366

404 4.6.6 Rolling element bearing design problem

This engineering problem has 10 geometric variables, nine constraints considered for assembly
and geometric-based restrictions and our purpose for tackling this case is to optimize (maximize)
the dynamic load carrying capacity. The formulation of this test case is described as follows:

Maximize Cd = fc Z 2/3 Db1.8 if D ≤ 25.4mm

2/3
Cd = 3.647fc Z Db1.4 if D > 25.4mm
Subject to
ϕ0
g1 (−
→
z)= −1 − Z + 1 ≤ 0,
2 sin (Db /Dm )
g2 (−
→z ) = 2Db − KD min (D − d) > 0,
−
→
g3 ( z ) = KD max (D − d) − 2Db ≥ 0,
g4 (−
→z ) = ζBw − Db ≤ 0,
−
→
g5 ( z ) = Dm − 0.5(D + d) ≥ 0,
g6 (−
→z ) = (0.5 + e)(D + d) − Dm ≥ 0,
−
→
g7 ( z ) = 0.5(D − Dm − Db ) − ϵDb ≥ 0,
g8 (−
→z ) = fi ≥ 0.515,
−
→
g9 ( z ) = fo ≥ 0.515,
where
 { 
( )1.72 ( )0.41 }10/3 −0.3
1−γ fi (2fo − 1)
fc = 37.91 1 + 1.04 
1+γ fo (2fi − 1)
[ ][ ]0.41
γ 0.3 (1 − γ)1.39 2fi
×
(1 + γ)1/3 2fi − 1
[ ]
x = {(D − d)/2 − 3 (T /4)}2 + {D/2 − T /4 − Db }2 − {d/2 + T /4}2
y = 2{(D − d)/2 − 3 (T /4)}{D/2 − T /4 − Db }
( )
−1 x
ϕo = 2Π − cos
y
Db ri ro
γ= , fi = , fo = , T = D − d − 2Db D = 160, d = 90,
Dm Db Db
Bw = 30, ri = ro = 11.033 0.5(D + d) ≤ Dm ≤ 0.6(D + d),
0.15(D − d) ≤ Db ≤ 0.45(D − d), 4 ≤ Z ≤ 50, 0.515 ≤ fi and fo ≤ 0.6,
0.4 ≤ KD min ≤ 0.5,
0.6 ≤ KD max ≤ 0.7, 0.3 ≤ e ≤ 0.4, 0.02 ≤ e ≤ 0.1, 0.6 ≤ ζ ≤ 0.85

28
405 A schematic view of this problem is illustrated in Fig. 16.

Dh

d0

D
d1
r0
ri

Bw
Figure 16: Rolling element bearing problem

406 This case covers closely 1.5% of the feasible area of the target space. The results of HHO is
407 compared to GA4 [94], TLBO [93], and PVS [92] techniques. Table 15 tabulates the results of
408 HHO versus those of other optimizers. From Table 15, we see that the proposed HHO has detected
409 the best solution with the maximum cost with a substantial progress compared to GA4, TLBO,
410 and PVS algorithms.

Table 15: Comparison of results for rolling element bearing design problem

Algorithms GA4 [94] TLBO [93] PVS [92] HHO

Dm 125.717100 125.7191 125.719060 125.000000
Db 21.423000 21.42559 21.425590 21.000000
Z 11.000000 11.000000 11.000000 11.092073
fi 0.515000 0.515000 0.515000 0.515000
f0 0.515000 0.515000 0.515000 0.515000
Kdmin 0.415900 0.424266 0.400430 0.400000
Kdmax 0.651000 0.633948 0.680160 0.600000
ϵ 0.300043 0.300000 0.300000 0.300000
e 0.022300 0.068858 0.079990 0.050474
ξ 0.751000 0.799498 0.700000 0.600000
Maximum cost 81843.30 81859.74 81859.741210 83011.88329

411 5 Discussion on results

412 As per results in previous sections, we can recognize that the HHO shows significantly superior
413 results for multi-dimensional F1-F13 problems and F14-F29 test cases compared to other well-
414 established optimizers such as GA, PSO, BBO, DE, CS, GWO, MFO, FPA, TLBO, BA, and FA
415 methods. While the efficacy of methods such as PSO, DE, MFO, and GA significantly degrade
416 by increasing the dimensions, the scalability results in Fig. 12 and Table 2 expose that HHO
417 is able to maintain a well equilibrium among the exploratory and exploitative propensities on
418 problems topographies with many variables. If we observe the results of F1-F7 in Tables 3-6,
419 there is a big, significant gap between the results of several methods such as the GA, PSO, DE,
420 BBO, GWO, FPA, FA, and BA, with high-quality solutions found by HHO. This observation
421 confirms the advanced exploitative merits of the proposed HHO. Based on the solution found for
422 multimodal and hybrid composition landscapes in Table 8, we detect that HHO finds superior

29
423 and competitive solutions based on a stable balance between the diversification and intensification
424 inclinations and a smooth transition between the searching modes. The results also support the
425 superior exploratory strengths of the HHO. The results for six well-known constrained cases in
426 Tables 10-15 also disclose that HHO obtains the best solutions and it is one of the top optimizers
427 compared to many state-of-the-art techniques. The results highlight that the proposed HHO has
428 several exploratory and exploitative mechanisms and consequently, it has efficiently avoided LO
429 and immature convergence drawbacks when solving different classes of problems and in the case
430 of any LO stagnation, the proposed HHO has shown a higher potential in jumping out of local
431 optimum solutions.
432 The following features can theoretically assist us in realizing why the proposed HHO can be
433 beneficial in exploring or exploiting the search space of a given optimization problem:

434 • Escaping energy E parameter has a dynamic randomized time-varying nature, which can
435 further boost the exploration and exploitation patterns of HHO. This factor also requires
436 HHO to perform a smooth transition between exploration and exploitation.

437 • Different diversification mechanisms with regard to the average location of hawks can boost
438 the exploratory behavior of HHO in initial iterations.

439 • Different LF-based patterns with short-length jumps enhance the exploitative behaviors of
440 HHO when conducting a local search.

441 • The progressive selection scheme assists search agents to progressively improve their position
442 and only select a better position, which can improve the quality of solutions and intensifica-
443 tion powers of HHO during the course of iterations.

444 • HHO utilizes a series of searching strategies based on E and r parameters and then, it selects
445 the best movement step. This capability has also a constructive impact on the exploitation
446 potential of HHO.

447 • The randomized jump J strength can assist candidate solutions in balancing the exploration
448 and exploitation tendencies.

449 • The use of adaptive and time-varying parameters allows HHO to handle difficulties of a
450 search space including local optimal solutions, multi-modality, and deceptive optima.

451 6 Conclusion and future directions

452 In this work, a novel population-based optimization algorithm called HHO is proposed to
453 tackle different optimization tasks. The proposed HHO is inspired by the cooperative behaviors
454 and chasing styles of predatory birds, Harris’ hawks, in nature. Several equations are designed
455 to simulate the social intelligence of Harris’ hawks to solve optimization problems. Twenty nine
456 unconstrained benchmark problems were used to evaluate the performance of HHO. Exploitative,
457 exploratory, and local optima avoidance of HHO was investigated using unimodal, multi-modal
458 and composition problems. The results obtained show that HHO was capable of finding excellent
459 solutions compared to other well-regarded optimizers. Additionally, the results of six constrained
460 engineering design tasks also revealed that the HHO can show superior results compared to other
461 optimizers.

30
462 We designed the HHO as simple as possible with few exploratory and exploitative mechanisms.
463 It is possible to utilize other evolutionary schemes such as mutation and crossover schemes, multi-
464 swarm and multi-leader structure, evolutionary updating structures, and chaos-based phases. Such
465 operators and ideas are beneficial for future works. In future works, the binary and multi-objective
466 versions of HHO can be developed. In addition, it can be employed to tackle various problems
467 in engineering and other fields. Another interesting direction is to compare different constraint
468 handling strategies in dealing with real-world constrained problems.

A Appendix A

Table 16: Description of unimodal benchmark functions.

Function Dimensions Range fmin

∑
f1 (x) = n x2i 30,100, 500, 1000 [−100,100] 0
∑i=1 ∏
f2 (x) = i=1 |xi |+ n
n
i=1 |xi | 30,100, 500, 1000 [−10,10] 0
∑n ( ∑i )2
f3 (x) = i=1 j−1 xj 30,100, 500, 1000 [−100,100] 0
f4 (x) = maxi {|xi |, 1 ≤ i ≤ n} 30,100, 500, 1000 [−100,100] 0
∑ [ ( ) ]
f5 (x) = n−1 2 2 + (x − 1)2
i=1 100 xi+1 − xi i 30,100, 500, 1000 [−30,30] 0
∑
f6 (x) = n ([xi + 0.5])2 30,100, 500, 1000 [−100,100] 0
∑i=1
n
f7 (x) = i=1 ix4i + random[0, 1) 30,100, 500, 1000 [−128,128] 0

Table 17: Description of multimodal benchmark functions.

Function Dimensions Range fmin

∑ (√ )
f8 (x) = ni=1 −xi sin |xi | 30,100, 500, 1000 [−500,500] −418.9829 × n
∑
f9 (x)= ni=1 [x2i − 10 cos (2πxi ) + 10] 30,100, 500, 1000 [−5.12,5.12] 0
√ ∑ ( ∑ )
f10 (x) = −20 exp(−0.2 n1 ni=1 x2i ) − exp n1 ni=1 cos (2πxi ) + 20 + e 30,100, 500, 1000 [−32,32] 0
∑ ∏ ( )
1 n 2 n xi
f11 (x) = 4000 i=1 xi − i=1 cos +1 30,100, 500, 1000 [−600,600] 0
√
i
f12{(x) = ∑ [ ] } 30,100, 500, 1000 [−50,50] 0
π
∑
n
10 sin (πy1 ) + n−1 2 2
i=1 (yi − 1) 1 + 10 sin (πyi+1 ) + (yn − 1)
2
+
n
i=1 u(xi , 10, 100, 4) {
k(xi − a)m xi > a
xi +1
yi = 1 + 4 u(xi , a, k, m) = 0 − a < xi < a
k(−xi − a)m xi < −a
f13 (x)
{ =2 30,100,]}
500, 1000 [−50,50] 0
∑n 2[ 2
] 2
[ 2
∑n sin (3πx1 ) + i=1 (xi − 1) 1 + sin (3πxi + 1) + (xn − 1) 1 + sin (2πxn ) +
0.1
i=1 u(xi , 5, 100, 4)

31
 Table 18: Description of fixed-dimension multimodal benchmark functions.

Function Dimensions Range fmin

( ∑25 )−1
1 1
f14 (x) = 500
+ ∑
j=1 j+ 2 (xi −aij )6 2 [−65, 65] 1
[ i=1 ]2
∑11 x1 (bi +bi x2 )
2
f15 (x) = i=1 ai − b2i +bi x3 +x4
4 [−5, 5] 0.00030
f16 (x) = 4x21 − 2.1x41 + 13 x61 + x1 x2 − 4x22 + 4x42 2 [−5, 5] −1.0316
( 5.1 2 5
)2 ( 1
)
f17 (x) = x2 − 4π 2 x1 + π x1 − 6 + 10 1 − 8π cos x1 + 10 2 [−5, 5] 0.398
f[ 18 (x) = ] 2 [−2, 2] 3
1 + (x1 + x2 + 1)2 (19 − 14x1 + 3x21 − 14x2 + 6x1 x2 + 3x22 )
[ 2 ]
× 30 + (2x1 − 3x2 ) × ((18 − 32x1 + 12x1 + 48x 2 2
) 2 − 36x1 x2 + 27x2 )
∑4 ∑3 2
f19 (x) = − i=1 ci exp − j=1 aij (xj − pij ) 3 [1, 3] −3.86
∑ ( ∑ )
f20 (x) = − 4i=1 ci exp − 6j=1 aij (xj − pij )2 6 [0, 1] −3.32
∑ [ ]−1
f21 (x) = − 5i=1 (X − ai ) (X − ai )T + ci 4 [0, 10] −10.1532
∑ [ ]−1
f22 (x) = − 7i=1 (X − ai ) (X − ai )T + ci 4 [0, 10] −10.4028
∑ [ ]−1
f23 (x) = − 10 T
i=1 (X − ai ) (X − ai ) + ci 4 [0.10] −10.5363

Table 19: Details of hybrid composition functions F24-F29 (MM: Multi-modal, R: Rotated, NS: Non-Separable, S:
Scalable, D: Dimension)

ID (CEC5-ID) Description Properties D Range

F24 (C16) Rotated Hybrid Composition Function MM, R, NS, S 30 [−5, 5]D
F25 (C18) Rotated Hybrid Composition Function MM, R, NS, S 30 [−5, 5]D
F26 (C19) Rotated Hybrid Composition Function with narrow basin global optimum MM, NS, S 30 [−5, 5]D
F27 (C20) Rotated Hybrid Composition Function with Global Optimum on the Bounds MM, NS, S 30 [−5, 5]D
F28 (C21) Rotated Hybrid Composition Function MM, R, NS, S 30 [−5, 5]D
F29 (C25) Rotated Hybrid Composition Function without bounds MM, NS, S 30 [−5, 5]D

B Appendix B

Table 20: p-values of the Wilcoxon rank-sum test with 5% significance for F1-F13 with 30 dimensions (p-values ≥
0.05 are shown in bold face, NaN means “Not a Number” returned by the test)
GA PSO BBO FPA GWO BAT FA CS MFO TLBO DE
F1 2.85E-11 2.88E-11 2.52E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F2 2.72E-11 2.52E-11 4.56E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F3 2.71E-11 2.63E-11 2.79E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F4 2.62E-11 2.84E-11 2.62E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F5 2.62E-11 2.52E-11 2.72E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F6 2.72E-11 2.71E-11 2.62E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 2.25E-04 3.02E-11
F7 2.52E-11 2.71E-11 9.19E-11 3.02E-11 3.69E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F8 7.83E-09 2.71E-11 7.62E-09 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F9 9.49E-13 1.00E-12 NaN 1.21E-12 4.35E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 4.57E-12 1.21E-12
F10 1.01E-12 1.14E-12 1.05E-12 1.21E-12 1.16E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 4.46E-13 1.21E-12
F11 9.53E-13 9.57E-13 9.54E-13 1.21E-12 2.79E-03 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 NaN 1.21E-12
F12 2.63E-11 2.51E-11 2.63E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 1.01E-08 3.02E-11 1.07E-06 3.02E-11
F13 2.51E-11 2.72E-11 2.61E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 5.49E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 2.00E-06 3.02E-11

32
Table 21: p-values of the Wilcoxon rank-sum test with 5% significance for F1-F13 with 100 dimensions (p-values
≥ 0.05 are shown in bold face)
GA PSO BBO FPA GWO BAT FA CS MFO TLBO DE
F1 2.98E-11 2.52E-11 2.52E-11 3.01E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F2 2.88E-11 2.72E-11 2.72E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F3 2.72E-11 2.72E-11 2.52E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F4 2.40E-11 2.52E-11 2.51E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.01E-11 3.02E-11
F5 2.72E-11 2.62E-11 2.84E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F6 2.52E-11 2.52E-11 2.52E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F7 2.71E-11 2.79E-11 2.52E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 4.20E-10 3.02E-11
F8 2.72E-11 2.51E-11 2.83E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 5.57E-10 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F9 1.06E-12 9.57E-13 9.54E-13 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 3.34E-01 1.21E-12
F10 9.56E-13 9.57E-13 1.09E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 4.16E-14 1.21E-12
F11 1.06E-12 9.55E-13 9.56E-13 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 NaN 1.21E-12
F12 2.72E-11 2.52E-11 2.52E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F13 2.72E-11 2.72E-11 2.52E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11

Table 22: p-values of the Wilcoxon rank-sum test with 5% significance for F1-F13 with 500 dimensions (p-values
≥ 0.05 are shown in bold face)
GA PSO BBO FPA GWO BAT FA CS MFO TLBO DE
F1 2.94E-11 2.79E-11 2.72E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F2 2.52E-11 2.63E-11 2.52E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F3 2.88E-11 2.52E-11 2.72E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F4 2.25E-11 2.52E-11 2.59E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F5 2.72E-11 2.72E-11 2.72E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F6 2.52E-11 2.52E-11 2.52E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F7 2.52E-11 2.79E-11 2.52E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 4.98E-11 3.02E-11
F8 2.52E-11 2.72E-11 2.63E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F9 1.06E-12 1.06E-12 1.06E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 NaN 1.21E-12
F10 9.57E-13 9.57E-13 1.06E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 6.14E-14 1.21E-12
F11 9.57E-13 9.57E-13 1.06E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 NaN 1.21E-12
F12 2.52E-11 2.52E-11 2.79E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F13 2.79E-11 2.52E-11 2.72E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11

Table 23: p-values of the Wilcoxon rank-sum test with 5% significance for F1-F13 with 1000 dimensions (p-values
≥ 0.05 are shown in bold face)
GA PSO BBO FPA GWO BAT FA CS MFO TLBO DE
F1 3.01E-11 2.52E-11 2.52E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F2 2.63E-11 1.21E-12 2.72E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 3.02E-11 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12
F3 2.86E-11 2.52E-11 2.52E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F4 1.93E-11 2.52E-11 2.07E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F5 2.72E-11 2.52E-11 2.52E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F6 2.63E-11 2.63E-11 2.63E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F7 2.63E-11 2.52E-11 2.52E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F8 2.52E-11 2.52E-11 2.52E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F9 1.01E-12 1.06E-12 9.57E-13 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 NaN 1.21E-12
F10 1.01E-12 1.01E-12 9.57E-13 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 8.72E-14 1.21E-12
F11 1.06E-12 1.01E-12 9.57E-13 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.17E-13 1.21E-12
F12 2.52E-11 2.52E-11 2.72E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11
F13 2.52E-11 2.63E-11 2.72E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 3.02E-11

Table 24: p-values of the Wilcoxon rank-sum test with 5% significance for F14-F29 problems(p-values ≥ 0.05 are
shown in bold face)
GA PSO BBO FPA GWO BAT FA CS MFO TLBO DE
F14 8.15E-02 2.89E-08 8.15E-03 1.08E-01 5.20E-08 7.46E-12 1.53E-09 6.13E-14 9.42E-06 8.15E-02 1.00E+00
F15 2.78E-11 7.37E-11 2.51E-11 9.76E-10 1.37E-01 3.34E-11 3.16E-10 8.69E-10 5.00E-10 5.08E-06 3.92E-02
F16 1.05E-12 9.53E-13 9.49E-13 NaN NaN 5.54E-03 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
F17 1.87E-12 1.89E-12 2.06E-12 1.61E-01 1.61E-01 5.97E-01 1.61E-01 1.61E-01 1.61E-01 1.61E-01 1.61E-01
F18 NaN 9.53E-13 NaN NaN 1.09E-02 1.34E-03 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN
F19 2.50E-11 5.24E-02 1.91E-09 1.65E-11 1.06E-01 5.02E-10 1.65E-11 1.65E-11 4.54E-10 1.65E-11 1.65E-11
F20 8.74E-03 2.54E-04 8.15E-03 6.15E-03 5.74E-06 5.09E-06 1.73E-07 NaN 1.73E-04 1.73E-04 1.73E-04
F21 1.22E-04 6.25E-05 5.54E-03 1.91E-08 5.54E-03 6.85E-07 1.71E-07 1.91E-08 9.42E-06 1.73E-04 1.79E-04
F22 1.64E-07 5.00E-10 8.15E-08 2.51E-11 8.15E-08 6.63E-07 5.24E-04 1.73E-08 8.15E-08 8.81E-10 1.21E-12
F23 1.54E-05 5.00E-10 8.88E-08 2.51E-11 8.88E-08 1.73E-08 5.14E-04 1.69E-08 8.88E-08 8.81E-10 NaN
F24 2.40E-01 4.69E-08 1.64E-05 1.17E-05 2.84E-04 3.02E-11 3.03E-03 3.08E-08 8.89E-10 8.35E-08 3.20E-09
F25 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12
F26 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12
F27 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12 1.21E-12
F28 0.012732 1.17E-09 5.07E-10 0.001114 1.01E-08 3.02E-11 2.37E-10 2.02E-08 8.35E-08 0.446419 2.71E-11
F29 1.85E-08 6.52E-09 3.02E-11 1.29E-06 7.12E-09 3.02E-11 1.17E-09 3.02E-11 3.02E-11 2.6E-08 3.02E-11

33
Acknowledgments
This research is funded by Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China
(LY17F020012), Science and Technology Plan Project of Wenzhou of China (ZG2017019).
We also acknowledge the comments of anonymous reviewers.

References
[1] R. Abbassi, A. Abbassi, A. A. Heidari, S. Mirjalili, An efficient salp swarm-inspired algorithm for parameters identification of
photovoltaic cell models, Energy Conversion and Management 179 (2019) 362–372.
[2] H. Faris, A. M. Al-Zoubi, A. A. Heidari, I. Aljarah, M. Mafarja, M. A. Hassonah, H. Fujita, An intelligent system for spam
detection and identification of the most relevant features based on evolutionary random weight networks, Information Fusion 48
(2019) 67 – 83.
[3] J. Nocedal, S. J. Wright, Numerical optimization 2nd, 2006.
[4] G. Wu, Across neighborhood search for numerical optimization, Information Sciences 329 (2016) 597–618.
[5] G. Wu, W. Pedrycz, P. N. Suganthan, R. Mallipeddi, A variable reduction strategy for evolutionary algorithms handling equality
constraints, Applied Soft Computing 37 (2015) 774–786.
[6] J. Dréo, A. Pétrowski, P. Siarry, E. Taillard, Metaheuristics for hard optimization: methods and case studies, Springer Science &
Business Media, 2006.
[7] E.-G. Talbi, Metaheuristics: from design to implementation, volume 74, John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
[8] S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt, M. P. Vecchi, Optimization by simulated annealing, science 220 (1983) 671–680.
[9] J. H. Holland, Genetic algorithms, Scientific american 267 (1992) 66–73.
[10] J. Luo, H. Chen, Y. Xu, H. Huang, X. Zhao, et al., An improved grasshopper optimization algorithm with application to financial
stress prediction, Applied Mathematical Modelling 64 (2018) 654–668.
[11] M. Wang, H. Chen, B. Yang, X. Zhao, L. Hu, Z. Cai, H. Huang, C. Tong, Toward an optimal kernel extreme learning machine
using a chaotic moth-flame optimization strategy with applications in medical diagnoses, Neurocomputing 267 (2017) 69–84.
[12] L. Shen, H. Chen, Z. Yu, W. Kang, B. Zhang, H. Li, B. Yang, D. Liu, Evolving support vector machines using fruit fly optimization
for medical data classification, Knowledge-Based Systems 96 (2016) 61–75.
[13] Q. Zhang, H. Chen, J. Luo, Y. Xu, C. Wu, C. Li, Chaos enhanced bacterial foraging optimization for global optimization, IEEE
Access (2018).
[14] A. A. Heidari, R. A. Abbaspour, A. R. Jordehi, An efficient chaotic water cycle algorithm for optimization tasks, Neural Computing
and Applications 28 (2017) 57–85.
[15] M. Mafarja, I. Aljarah, A. A. Heidari, A. I. Hammouri, H. Faris, A.-Z. AlaM, S. Mirjalili, Evolutionary population dynamics and
grasshopper optimization approaches for feature selection problems, Knowledge-Based Systems 145 (2018) 25 – 45.
[16] M. Mafarja, I. Aljarah, A. A. Heidari, H. Faris, P. Fournier-Viger, X. Li, S. Mirjalili, Binary dragonfly optimization for feature
selection using time-varying transfer functions, Knowledge-Based Systems 161 (2018) 185 – 204.
[17] I. Aljarah, M. Mafarja, A. A. Heidari, H. Faris, Y. Zhang, S. Mirjalili, Asynchronous accelerating multi-leader salp chains for
feature selection, Applied Soft Computing 71 (2018) 964–979.
[18] S. Mirjalili, A. Lewis, The whale optimization algorithm, Advances in Engineering Software 95 (2016) 51–67.
[19] H. Faris, M. M. Mafarja, A. A. Heidari, I. Aljarah, A.-Z. AlaM, S. Mirjalili, H. Fujita, An efficient binary salp swarm algorithm
with crossover scheme for feature selection problems, Knowledge-Based Systems 154 (2018) 43–67.
[20] J. R. Koza, Genetic Programming II, Automatic Discovery of Reusable Subprograms, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992.
[21] R. Storn, K. Price, Differential evolution–a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces, Journal
of global optimization 11 (1997) 341–359.
[22] D. Simon, Biogeography-based optimization, IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation 12 (2008) 702–713.
[23] O. K. Erol, I. Eksin, A new optimization method: big bang–big crunch, Advances in Engineering Software 37 (2006) 106–111.
[24] R. A. Formato, Central force optimization, progress in Electromagnetic Research77 (2007) 425–491.
[25] E. Rashedi, H. Nezamabadi-Pour, S. Saryazdi, Gsa: a gravitational search algorithm, Information sciences 179 (2009) 2232–2248.
[26] S. Salcedo-Sanz, Modern meta-heuristics based on nonlinear physics processes: A review of models and design procedures, Physics
Reports 655 (2016) 1–70.
[27] F. Glover, Tabu searchpart i, ORSA Journal on computing 1 (1989) 190–206.
[28] M. Kumar, A. J. Kulkarni, S. C. Satapathy, Socio evolution & learning optimization algorithm: A socio-inspired optimization
methodology, Future Generation Computer Systems 81 (2018) 252–272.
[29] R. V. Rao, V. J. Savsani, D. Vakharia, Teaching–learning-based optimization: an optimization method for continuous non-linear
large scale problems, Information Sciences 183 (2012) 1–15.
[30] A. Baykasoğlu, F. B. Ozsoydan, Evolutionary and population-based methods versus constructive search strategies in dynamic
combinatorial optimization, Information Sciences 420 (2017) 159–183.
[31] A. A. Heidari, H. Faris, I. Aljarah, S. Mirjalili, An efficient hybrid multilayer perceptron neural network with grasshopper
optimization, Soft Computing (2018) 1–18.
[32] R. Eberhart, J. Kennedy, A new optimizer using particle swarm theory, in: Micro Machine and Human Science, 1995. MHS’95.,
Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on, IEEE, pp. 39–43.
[33] M. Dorigo, V. Maniezzo, A. Colorni, Ant system: optimization by a colony of cooperating agents, IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics) 26 (1996) 29–41.
[34] A. H. Gandomi, X.-S. Yang, A. H. Alavi, Cuckoo search algorithm: a metaheuristic approach to solve structural optimization
problems, Engineering with computers 29 (2013) 17–35.
[35] X.-S. Yang, Review of meta-heuristics and generalised evolutionary walk algorithm, International Journal of Bio-Inspired Com-
putation 3 (2011) 77–84.

34
[36] D. H. Wolpert, W. G. Macready, No free lunch theorems for optimization, IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation 1
(1997) 67–82.
[37] J. C. Bednarz, Cooperative hunting in harris’ hawks (parabuteo unicinctus), Science 239 (1988) 1525.
[38] L. Lefebvre, P. Whittle, E. Lascaris, A. Finkelstein, Feeding innovations and forebrain size in birds, Animal Behaviour 53 (1997)
549–560.
[39] D. Sol, R. P. Duncan, T. M. Blackburn, P. Cassey, L. Lefebvre, Big brains, enhanced cognition, and response of birds to novel
environments, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102 (2005) 5460–5465.
[40] F. Dubois, L.-A. Giraldeau, I. M. Hamilton, J. W. Grant, L. Lefebvre, Distraction sneakers decrease the expected level of aggression
within groups: a game-theoretic model, The American Naturalist 164 (2004) E32–E45.
[41] EurekAlertAAAS, Bird iq test takes flight, 2005.
[42] N. E. Humphries, N. Queiroz, J. R. Dyer, N. G. Pade, M. K. Musyl, K. M. Schaefer, D. W. Fuller, J. M. Brunnschweiler, T. K.
Doyle, J. D. Houghton, et al., Environmental context explains lévy and brownian movement patterns of marine predators, Nature
465 (2010) 1066–1069.
[43] G. M. Viswanathan, V. Afanasyev, S. Buldyrev, E. Murphy, P. Prince, H. E. Stanley, Lévy flight search patterns of wandering
albatrosses, Nature 381 (1996) 413.
[44] D. W. Sims, E. J. Southall, N. E. Humphries, G. C. Hays, C. J. Bradshaw, J. W. Pitchford, A. James, M. Z. Ahmed, A. S.
Brierley, M. A. Hindell, et al., Scaling laws of marine predator search behaviour, Nature 451 (2008) 1098–1102.
[45] A. O. Gautestad, I. Mysterud, Complex animal distribution and abundance from memory-dependent kinetics, ecological complexity
3 (2006) 44–55.
[46] M. F. Shlesinger, Levy flights: Variations on a theme, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 38 (1989) 304–309.
[47] G. Viswanathan, V. Afanasyev, S. V. Buldyrev, S. Havlin, M. Da Luz, E. Raposo, H. E. Stanley, Lévy flights in random searches,
Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 282 (2000) 1–12.
[48] X.-S. Yang, Nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithms, Luniver press, 2010.
[49] X. Yao, Y. Liu, G. Lin, Evolutionary programming made faster, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary computation 3 (1999) 82–102.
[50] J. G. Digalakis, K. G. Margaritis, On benchmarking functions for genetic algorithms, International journal of computer mathe-
matics 77 (2001) 481–506.
[51] S. Garcı́a, D. Molina, M. Lozano, F. Herrera, A study on the use of non-parametric tests for analyzing the evolutionary algorithms
behaviour: a case study on the cec2005 special session on real parameter optimization, Journal of Heuristics 15 (2009) 617.
[52] X.-S. Yang, A. Hossein Gandomi, Bat algorithm: a novel approach for global engineering optimization, Engineering Computations
29 (2012) 464–483.
[53] X.-S. Yang, M. Karamanoglu, X. He, Flower pollination algorithm: a novel approach for multiobjective optimization, Engineering
Optimization 46 (2014) 1222–1237.
[54] A. H. Gandomi, X.-S. Yang, A. H. Alavi, Mixed variable structural optimization using firefly algorithm, Computers & Structures
89 (2011) 2325–2336.
[55] S. Mirjalili, S. M. Mirjalili, A. Lewis, Grey wolf optimizer, Advances in Engineering Software 69 (2014) 46–61.
[56] S. Mirjalili, Moth-flame optimization algorithm: A novel nature-inspired heuristic paradigm, Knowledge-Based Systems 89 (2015)
228–249.
[57] J. Derrac, S. Garcı́a, D. Molina, F. Herrera, A practical tutorial on the use of nonparametric statistical tests as a methodology
for comparing evolutionary and swarm intelligence algorithms, Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 1 (2011) 3–18.
[58] X.-S. Yang, Firefly algorithm, stochastic test functions and design optimisation, International Journal of Bio-Inspired Computation
2 (2010) 78–84.
[59] F. Van Den Bergh, A. P. Engelbrecht, A study of particle swarm optimization particle trajectories, Information sciences 176
(2006) 937–971.
[60] S. Mirjalili, A. H. Gandomi, S. Z. Mirjalili, S. Saremi, H. Faris, S. M. Mirjalili, Salp swarm algorithm: A bio-inspired optimizer
for engineering design problems, Advances in Engineering Software (2017).
[61] H. Eskandar, A. Sadollah, A. Bahreininejad, M. Hamdi, Water cycle algorithm–a novel metaheuristic optimization method for
solving constrained engineering optimization problems, Computers & Structures 110 (2012) 151–166.
[62] S. Saremi, S. Mirjalili, A. Lewis, Grasshopper optimisation algorithm: Theory and application, Advances in Engineering Software
105 (2017) 30–47.
[63] C. A. C. Coello, Use of a self-adaptive penalty approach for engineering optimization problems, Computers in Industry 41 (2000)
113–127.
[64] M. Zhang, W. Luo, X. Wang, Differential evolution with dynamic stochastic selection for constrained optimization, Information
Sciences 178 (2008) 3043–3074.
[65] S. Mirjalili, S. M. Mirjalili, A. Hatamlou, Multi-verse optimizer: a nature-inspired algorithm for global optimization, Neural
Computing and Applications 27 (2016) 495–513.
[66] H. Liu, Z. Cai, Y. Wang, Hybridizing particle swarm optimization with differential evolution for constrained numerical and
engineering optimization, Applied Soft Computing 10 (2010) 629–640.
[67] A. Sadollah, A. Bahreininejad, H. Eskandar, M. Hamdi, Mine blast algorithm: A new population based algorithm for solving
constrained engineering optimization problems, Applied Soft Computing 13 (2013) 2592–2612.
[68] J.-F. Tsai, Global optimization of nonlinear fractional programming problems in engineering design, Engineering Optimization
37 (2005) 399–409.
[69] T. Ray, P. Saini, Engineering design optimization using a swarm with an intelligent information sharing among individuals,
Engineering Optimization 33 (2001) 735–748.
[70] A. Kaveh, A. Dadras, A novel meta-heuristic optimization algorithm: Thermal exchange optimization, Advances in Engineering
Software 110 (2017) 69 – 84.
[71] H. Salimi, Stochastic fractal search: a powerful metaheuristic algorithm, Knowledge-Based Systems 75 (2015) 1–18.
[72] J. S. Arora, Introduction to optimum design, 1989, McGraw-Mill Book Company (1967).
[73] K. Deb, Optimal design of a welded beam via genetic algorithms, AIAA journal 29 (1991) 2013–2015.
[74] C. A. C. Coello, E. M. Montes, Constraint-handling in genetic algorithms through the use of dominance-based tournament
selection, Advanced Engineering Informatics 16 (2002) 193–203.

35
[75] A. D. Belegundu, J. S. Arora, A study of mathematical programming methods for structural optimization. part i: Theory,
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 21 (1985) 1583–1599.
[76] Q. He, L. Wang, An effective co-evolutionary particle swarm optimization for constrained engineering design problems, Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence 20 (2007) 89–99.
[77] L. Wang, L.-p. Li, An effective differential evolution with level comparison for constrained engineering design, Structural and
Multidisciplinary Optimization 41 (2010) 947–963.
[78] Y. Wang, Z. Cai, Y. Zhou, Z. Fan, Constrained optimization based on hybrid evolutionary algorithm and adaptive constraint-
handling technique, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 37 (2009) 395–413.
[79] A. Kaveh, T. Bakhshpoori, Water evaporation optimization: a novel physically inspired optimization algorithm, Computers &
Structures 167 (2016) 69–85.
[80] A. H. Gandomi, X.-S. Yang, A. H. Alavi, S. Talatahari, Bat algorithm for constrained optimization tasks, Neural Computing and
Applications 22 (2013) 1239–1255.
[81] E. Mezura-Montes, C. A. C. Coello, A simple multimembered evolution strategy to solve constrained optimization problems,
IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary computation 9 (2005) 1–17.
[82] W. Gong, Z. Cai, D. Liang, Engineering optimization by means of an improved constrained differential evolution, Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 268 (2014) 884–904.
[83] Q. He, L. Wang, A hybrid particle swarm optimization with a feasibility-based rule for constrained optimization, Applied
mathematics and computation 186 (2007) 1407–1422.
[84] L. dos Santos Coelho, Gaussian quantum-behaved particle swarm optimization approaches for constrained engineering design
problems, Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 1676–1683.
[85] H. Rosenbrock, An automatic method for finding the greatest or least value of a function, The Computer Journal 3 (1960)
175–184.
[86] A. Kaveh, S. Talatahari, A novel heuristic optimization method: charged system search, Acta Mechanica 213 (2010) 267–289.
[87] M. Montemurro, A. Vincenti, P. Vannucci, The automatic dynamic penalisation method (adp) for handling constraints with
genetic algorithms, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 256 (2013) 70–87.
[88] E. Mezura-Montes, C. Coello Coello, J. Velázquez-Reyes, L. Muñoz-Dávila, Multiple trial vectors in differential evolution for
engineering design, Engineering Optimization 39 (2007) 567–589.
[89] K. Ragsdell, D. Phillips, Optimal design of a class of welded structures using geometric programming, Journal of Engineering for
Industry 98 (1976) 1021–1025.
[90] K. S. Lee, Z. W. Geem, A new structural optimization method based on the harmony search algorithm, Computers & structures
82 (2004) 781–798.
[91] F.-z. Huang, L. Wang, Q. He, An effective co-evolutionary differential evolution for constrained optimization, Applied Mathematics
and computation 186 (2007) 340–356.
[92] P. Savsani, V. Savsani, Passing vehicle search (pvs): A novel metaheuristic algorithm, Applied Mathematical Modelling 40 (2016)
3951–3978.
[93] R. V. Rao, V. J. Savsani, D. Vakharia, Teaching–learning-based optimization: a novel method for constrained mechanical design
optimization problems, Computer-Aided Design 43 (2011) 303–315.
[94] S. Gupta, R. Tiwari, S. B. Nair, Multi-objective design optimisation of rolling bearings using genetic algorithms, Mechanism and
Machine Theory 42 (2007) 1418–1443.

36
 Ali Asghar Heidari is now a Ph.D. research intern at the School of Computing,
National University of Singapore (NUS). Currently, he is also an exceptionally
talented Ph.D. candidate at the University of Tehran and he is awarded and
funded by Iran's National Elites Foundation (INEF). His main research interests
are advanced machine learning, evolutionary computation, meta-heuristics,
prediction, information systems, and spatial modeling. He has published more
than ten papers in international journals such as Information Fusion, Energy
Conversion and Management, Applied Soft Computing, and Knowledge-Based
Systems.

Seyedali Mirjalili is a lecturer at Griffith University and internationally recognised

for his advances in Swarm Intelligence (SI) and optimisation, including the first
set of SI techniques from a synthetic intelligence standpoint - a radical departure
from how natural systems are typically understood - and a systematic design
framework to reliably benchmark, evaluate, and propose computationally cheap
robust optimisation algorithms. Dr Mirjalili has published over 80 journal articles,
many in high-impact journals with over 7000 citations in total with an H-index of
29 and G-index of 84. From Google Scholar metrics, he is globally the 3rd most cited researcher in
Engineering Optimisation and Robust Optimisation. He is serving an associate editor of Advances in
Engineering Software and the journal of Algorithms.

Hossam Faris is an Associate professor at Business Information Technology

department/King Abdullah II School for Information Technology/ The University
of Jordan (Jordan). Hossam Faris received his BA, M.Sc. degrees (with excellent
rates) in Computer Science from Yarmouk University and Al-Balqa` Applied
University in 2004 and 2008 respectively in Jordan. Since then, he has been awarded
a full-time competition-based PhD scholarship from the Italian Ministry of
Education and Research to peruse his PhD degrees in e-Business at University of
Salento, Italy, where he obtained his PhD degree in 2011. In 2016, he worked as a Postdoctoral
researcher with GeNeura team at the Information and Communication Technologies Research Center
(CITIC), University of Granada (Spain). His research interests include: Applied Computational
Intelligence, Evolutionary Computation, Knowledge Systems, Data mining, Semantic Web and
Ontologies.
 Ibrahim Aljarah is an assistant professor of BIG Data Mining and Computational
Intelligence at the University of Jordan - Department of Business Information
Technology, Jordan. He obtained his bachelor degree in Computer Science from
Yarmouk University - Jordan, 2003. Dr. Aljarah also obtained his master degree
in computer science and information systems from the Jordan University of
Science and Technology - Jordan in 2006. He also obtained his Ph.D. In computer
Science from the North Dakota State University (NDSU), USA, in May 2014. He
organized and participated in many conferences in the field of data mining, machine learning, and Big
data such as NTIT, CSIT, IEEE NABIC, CASON, and BIGDATA Congress. Furthermore, he
contributed in many projects in USA such as Vehicle Class Detection System (VCDS), Pavement
Analysis Via Vehicle Electronic Telemetry (PAVVET), and Farm Cloud Storage System (CSS)
projects. He has published more than 35 papers in refereed international conferences and journals.
His research focuses on data mining, Machine Learning, Big Data, MapReduce, Hadoop, Swarm
intelligence, Evolutionary Computation, Social Network Analysis (SNA), and large scale distributed
algorithms.

Majdi Mafarja received his B.Sc in Software Engineering and M.Sc in Computer
Information Systems from Philadelphia University and The Arab Academy for
Banking and Financial Sciences, Jordan in 2005 and 2007 respectively. Dr.
Mafarja did his PhD in Computer Science at National University of Malaysia
(UKM). He was a member in Datamining and Optimization Research Group
(DMO). Now he is an assistant professor at the Department of Computer
Science at Birzeit University. His research interests include Evolutionary
Computation, Meta-heuristics and Data mining.

Huiling Chen is currently an associate professor in the department of computer

science at Wenzhou University, China. He received his Ph.D. degree in the
department of computer science and technology at Jilin University, China. His
present research interests center on evolutionary computation, machine learning, and
data mining, as well as their applications to medical diagnosis and bankruptcy
prediction. He has published more than 100 papers in international journals and
conference proceedings, including Pattern Recognition, Expert Systems with
Applications, Knowledge-Based Systems, Soft Computing, Neurocomputing, Applied Mathematical
Modeling, IEEE ACCESS, PAKDD, and among others.
• A mathematical model is proposed to simulate the hunting behaviour of Harris' Hawks
• An optimization algorithm is proposed using the mathematical model
• The proposed HHO algorithm is tested on several benchmarks
• The performance of HHO is also examined on several engineering design problems
• The results show the merits of the HHO algorithm as compared to the existing algorithms