Artif Intell Rev

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-017-9605-z

Metaheuristic research: a comprehensive survey

Kashif Hussain1 · Mohd Najib Mohd Salleh1 ·

Shi Cheng2 · Yuhui Shi3

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract Because of successful implementations and high intensity, metaheuristic research

has been extensively reported in literature, which covers algorithms, applications, compar-
isons, and analysis. Though, little has been evidenced on insightful analysis of metaheuristic
performance issues, and it is still a “black box” that why certain metaheuristics perform
better on specific optimization problems and not as good on others. The performance related
analyses performed on algorithms are mostly quantitative via performance validation metrics
like mean error, standard deviation, and co-relations have been used. Moreover, the perfor-
mance tests are often performed on specific benchmark functions—few studies are those
which involve real data from scientific or engineering optimization problems. In order to
draw a comprehensive picture of metaheuristic research, this paper performs a survey of
metaheuristic research in literature which consists of 1222 publications from year 1983 to
2016 (33 years). Based on the collected evidence, this paper addresses four dimensions of
metaheuristic research: introduction of new algorithms, modifications and hybrids, compar-
isons and analysis, and research gaps and future directions. The objective is to highlight
potential open questions and critical issues raised in literature. The work provides guidance
for future research to be conducted more meaningfully that can serve for the good of this
area of research.

Keywords Metaheuristic · Optimization · Global optimization · Swarm intelligence ·

Evolutionary algorithms

B Mohd Najib Mohd Salleh

[email protected]
1 Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia,
Johor, Malaysia
2 School of Computer Science, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an, China
3 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology,
Shenzhen, China

123
 K. Hussain et al.

1 Introduction

Optimization is everywhere, be it engineering design or industrial design, business planning

or holiday planning, etc. We use optimization techniques to solve problems intelligently by
choosing the best from larger number of available options. Metaheuristics have earned more
popularity over exact methods in solving optimization problems because of simplicity and
robustness of results produced while implemented in widely varied fields including engi-
neering, business, transportation, and even social sciences. There is established extensive
research by metaheuristic community, which involves introduction of new methods, appli-
cations, and performance analysis. However, Srensen et al. (2017) believes that the field of
metaheuristics has still to reach maturity as compared to physics, chemistry, or mathematics.
There is immense room of research to appear on various issues faced by metaheuristic com-
puting. This paper aims at determining the volume of research conducted in this particular
discipline, as well as, highlight some of the open questions and critical concerns that need
further attention by researchers. Additionally, this survey work presents complete overview
of body of knowledge in order to present current status of this particular field and suggest
potential future directions. In this context, we present a systematic study of research work
published between the years 1983 and 2016. In order to lay the foundation of the idea of
this paper, we took guidance from recent survey study conducted by Uddin et al. (2016).
It is worth mentioning here that the terms optimization algorithm, method, algorithm, and
technique refer to metaheuristic algorithm.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. First, in the following section, the
systematic mapping process for conducting this survey is explained. Section 3 answers the
research questions by analyzing the synthesizing results of the collected data (publications).
In Sect. 4 some of the related work is highlighted. The significant gaps in metaheuristic
research identified in this survey are presented in Sect. 5. Finally, Sect. 6 duly concludes
the paper and presents a summary of the present work and potential directions for the future
research.

2 Systematic mapping process

Generally, systematic review of existing literature is performed based on the guidelines

provided by Petersen et al. (2008) and Keele (2007). The guidelines adopted in this paper are
from Keele (2007) whereas the study mapping process is taken from Petersen et al. (2008)
after modification. The modified process is depicted in Fig. 1 and explained later in this
paper. For greater detail on the original process, the relevant study mentioned previously can
be referred.
Research questions guide and create strong bond of ideas pivoting the main objective of
the study. Therefore, this research revolves around a vivid central point by clearly defining
the research questions. It helps in screening and selecting the desired papers. Additionally,
keywords are identified from abstracts of some of the primary literature already in hand.
These keywords are used to search publications including proceedings, papers, articles, and
book chapters.

2.1 Preliminary study

This is where the systematic literature review commences. For better idea about the scope of
search, it is necessary to perform some preliminary study earlier. This draws the reason behind

123
Metaheuristic research: a comprehensive survey

Fig. 1 Modified study mapping process

authors motivation for conducting a comprehensive review, systematically. The primary study
can be performed by random search over the internet via common search engines (for instance
Google Scholar) using one or two keywords strictly relevant to the area of study. After finding
few papers, these papers can be used to select more relevant keywords from abstracts, and can
also be used to determine initial search venues; later on, few more significant search sources
may be added as the search furthers. That said, we performed our initial search with the
keyword “Metaheuristic” on Google Scholar. From this early stage, we finalized keywords
and search venues mentioned in Table 1. For this, we listed down all the keywords from the
papers in hand, selected most commonly used keywords for our further search. Table 1 also
serves as the guide for the reader to know the useful keywords while searching the related
literature.
After initial search and study of some of the papers, the idea about designing research
questions was to be more logical. Hence, the following research questions were well designed
at this stage.

2.2 Research questions

The main question which derives the motivation behind this study is: How can we draw
a comprehensive picture of metaheuristic research? For answering this, we formulated four
different research questions (RQs) to be injected into the collected literature. These questions
are:

RQ-1 What are the basic concepts related to metaheuristics?

Rationale The answer to this question establishes foundation and provides prelimi-
nary knowledge to comprehend the research.
RQ-2 What is the intensity of publications in the field of metaheuristics?
Rationale This question investigates the potential of metaheuristic algorithms in solv-
ing optimization problems. Here, conference proceedings, journals, papers, book
chapters and articles are taken into account.
RQ-3 What are the most frequently used metaphors or design patterns used to develop
metaheuristic algorithms?
Rationale This question investigates the metaphors or frameworks adopted from dif-
ferent disciplines to design metaheuristic methods.
RQ-4 What analytical techniques have been used for validating metaheuristic perfor-
mances?
Rationale This question lists approaches to performance validation of metaheuristic

123
 Table 1 Keywords and search results on the selected venues

S.No. Keywords ACM Elsevier Hindawi IEEE Xplore Springer Wiley Other Total

123
1 Metaheuristic 23 54 49 28 36 27 16 233
2 Meta-heuristics 6 29 0 30 16 8 5 94
3 Optimisation 3 8 6 0 2 1 6 26
4 Optimization 0 9 8 2 4 1 5 29
5 Numerical optimization 9 14 13 4 3 0 7 50
6 Global optimization 8 18 28 11 8 0 1 74
7 Constrained optimization 3 10 3 5 12 0 1 34
8 Unconstrained optimization 2 7 6 6 5 0 0 26
9 Combinatorial optimization 13 9 15 2 3 1 4 47
10 Local search 11 14 13 7 21 1 0 67
11 Global search 5 37 15 6 11 0 0 74
12 Neighborhood search 7 11 6 7 8 0 0 39
13 Exploitation 2 4 11 2 1 0 0 20
14 Exploration 0 2 5 1 0 2 0 10
15 Intensification 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 8
16 Diversification 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 5
17 Heuristic Search Algorithm 0 8 0 8 21 0 0 37
18 Evolutionary Algorithms 2 9 8 8 29 0 4 60
19 Evolutionary Computation 2 7 3 3 7 0 5 27
20 Bio Inspired Algorithm 4 19 0 16 27 2 3 71
21 Computational Intelligence 0 6 0 1 5 0 1 13
22 Collective Intelligence 0 4 0 2 13 0 2 21
23 Swarm Intelligence 19 29 23 22 37 18 9 157
Total 119 309 213 178 273 61 69 1222
K. Hussain et al.
Metaheuristic research: a comprehensive survey

algorithms. These techniques are critically analyzed to determine the authentication

of the approaches used in comparisons and performance analysis.
RQ-5 What are the potential future directions in the field of metaheuristics?
Rationale This question highlights some of the important topics or sub-areas in the
field of metaheuristics as future directions. Here, some of the critical issues and open
questions that call for significant amount of future research are presented.

2.3 Conduct search

There are two ways to conduct search for systematic literature review: automatic (Petersen
et al. 2008) and manual (Keele 2007). This study prefers the later strategy, as the prior
approach poses few drawbacks since currently available automatic search engines are not
feasible for this kind of study (Brereton et al. 2007). The manual search is generally used
for searching primary studies from the most relevant sources. Table 1 shows the poten-
tial venues that have been used as publication sources. These sources have vast variety
of publications including conference proceeding, journal papers, articles and book chap-
ters.
The search keywords mentioned in Table 1 were keyed in on the search panel of the pub-
lication websites, with default search settings, but list order was set to descending order of
publication date (latest first). Averagely, 25 items were listed in every search page, and
we browsed through only first three pages, which make 75 search items for each key-
word on each venue. We went through all these 75 items and selected the most relevant
publications for our review database. Following are the inclusion and exclusion criteria
defined:
– Inclusion Most relevant publications including journal papers, conference proceedings,
articles, and book chapters focus on introduction of new metaheuristic algorithm, propos-
ing modification or hybrid of metaheuristic methods, reviews, surveys, comparisons and
analysis, or applications of metaheuristics in solving any real-world or benchmark opti-
mization problem.
– Exclusion The short papers with less than 5 pages, and publications not related to meta-
heuristics.

2.4 Screening of publications

It is a two iterations process. Initially, total 1222 publications were identified through search
on selected venues. After this, the literature was reviewed and assessed by the project team in
order to judge the relevance. Here, we reviewed abstracts and conclusions, also put a glance
on the main body if the research deemed potential and close to our research theme. This way,
the inclusion and exclusion was performed to create our search database.

2.5 Data extraction

A spreadsheet was designed to record different characteristics of a publication to address

the research questions and objectives of the study. The information covered in this sheet
included paper number, title, authors, publication year, venue, publication type (conference,
journal, or book chapter), research type (new method, modification, hybrid, comparisons and
analysis, or survey).

123
 K. Hussain et al.

3 Analysis and synthesis of data

This section answers the research questions designed in this study. In order to better under-
stand the data collected, the study is divided into following research questions.

3.1 RQ1: what are the basic concepts related to metaheuristics?

This section explains the basic concepts of metaheuristic computing, terms used in this
area, and generalized mathematical representation of a metaheuristic algorithm. This section
adequately builds preliminary knowledge for readers to comprehend this particular area of
research, hence it starts with Optimization.

3.1.1 Optimization

Optimization is performed to maximize outcome with limited resources by selecting the

best solution, from a set of available solutions (Greenberg 2004). Yang (2012) elaborates
optimization with an example of searching diamond in a large forest (search domain). Looking
into the search area inch-by-inch will consume enormous amount of energy and time. In such
scenario, any optimization technique may be applied to focus only on the potential spots where
the possibility of finding diamond is higher. This way, the problem will be solved intelligently
rather than laboriously.
Every optimization problem comes with few decision variables (e.g., which search mode
to use for searching diamond and in which order to visit the forest), certain objective function
(e.g., searching maximum diamond), and some constraints (e.g., searching diamond with less
time and effort) (Srensen et al. 2012). Optimization techniques are employed to obtain the
values of decision variables that optimize an objective function subject to certain constraints.

Definition 1 Formally, optimization problem, P, is defined as:

.
P = (S, Ω, f ) (1)
where, S is the search space defined over a finite set of decision variables X i , i = 1, . . . , n;
Ω is a set of constraints among the decision variables; f is an objective function that needs
to be optimized.

To solve P, an optimal solution s ∗ of P is to be found with minimum objective function

value f (s ∗ ) ≤ f (s), ∀s ∈ S, or f (s ∗ ) ≥ f (s), ∀s ∈ S, in case the objective function is to
be maximized.
Optimization problems vary by structure: single or multi-objective, constrained or uncon-
strained, or combinatorial optimization problems.

Single versus multi-objective optimization Optimization problems that rely on one specific
objective which is to be maximized or minimized are supposed to be single-objective opti-
mization problems. Such problems may also have several objectives combined together to
form single main objective. The purpose of single-objective optimization technique is to find
a single solution (best solution) that best lumps a number of objectives into one. On the
other hand, many complex industry and scientific optimization problems are multi-objective
in nature. These problems involve multiple contradictory criteria or objectives that must
be satisfied simultaneously. Multi-objective optimization problem contains more than one
contradicting objectives that need to be satisfied based on certain constraints (Tan et al. 2013).

123
Metaheuristic research: a comprehensive survey

Constrained versus un-constrained optimization Many real-life optimization problems have

certain constraints/rules that cannot be violated while finding an optimized solution.
Therefore, the problem in this category involves objective function f (x) that is to be
minimized/maximized based on certain constraints. Whereas, unconstrained optimization
problems do not involve any restrictions or limitations, and they depend on real variables.
Such problems have objective function that minimizes or maximizes the value of f (Bae
et al. 2012).

Combinatorial optimization In combinatorial optimization problems, solutions are encoded

in discrete variables (Blum and Roli 2003). Unlike multi-objective optimization, where the
optimal values of variables are to be found in order to maximize/minimize the objective func-
tion, many real-world problems need to select or arrange (combination or permutation) a set
of objects in a way that objective function is maximized/minimized. Combinatorial optimiza-
tion is optimization derived from discrete mathematics, where we try different combinations
of unordered collection of distinct elements, of size k, taken from a set of S elements (Yu
and Gen 2010).
Since the background of optimization has been established, the next section introduces
basic concepts and mathematical representation of a metaheuristic algorithm, moreover, the
subsections discuss different categories of the algorithms.

3.1.2 Metaheuristic algorithm

Metaheuristics are used to solve optimization problems by the process of searching optimal
solutions to a particular problem of interest. The process of searching can be carried out using
multiple agents which essentially form a system of evolving solutions using a set of rules or
mathematical equations during multiple iterations. These iterations carry until the solution
found meets some predefined criterion. This final solution (near optimal solution) is said to
be an optimal solution and a system is deemed to have reached a converged state (Yang and
Deb 2014).
As opposite to exact methods that find optimal solution at the expense of high computa-
tional time, heuristic methods find near optimal solution rather quickly. But, these methods
are mostly problem specific. As the term meta in metaheuristics suggests, metaheuristics are
one level higher than heuristic approaches. Metaheuristic techniques have seen a great amount
of success as they are likely to provide solutions at an acceptable computational cost. Very
good solutions can be obtained by hybridizing good heuristics with classical metaheuristics
for many real-world problems.
In order to build theoretical foundations of metaheuristic, it is important to analyze the fun-
damental terms in metaheuristic computing which implements adaptive intelligent behavior.
The definitions given by Wang (2010) serve the purpose:
Definition 2 A heuristic is a reasoning methodology in problem solving that enables a solu-
tion to a problem is driven by trial-and-error.
Definition 3 A metaheuristic is a generic or higher-level heuristic that is more general in
problem solving.
Definition 4 Metaheuristic computing is an adaptive computing that applies general heuristic
rules in solving a category of computational problems.
On the basis of above definitions, the generalized mathematical formulation of a metaheuristic
can be defined as below (Wang 2010):

123
 K. Hussain et al.

Definition 5 A metaheuristic (MH) can be described as:

.
M H = (O, A, R c , R i , R o ) (2)
where, O is a set of metaheuristic methodologies (i.e. metaheuristic, adaptive, automotive,
trial-and-error, cognitive, etc.); A is a set of generic algorithms (e.g., genetic algorithm,
particle swarm optimization, evolutionary algorithm, ant colony optimization, etc.); R c =
O × A, is a set of internal relations; R i ⊆ A × A, A ∧ A
, is a set of input relations; where
C  is a set of external concepts and c is concept environment. For convenience, R i = A × A
may be simply denoted as R i = C  × c. R o ⊆ c × C  is a set of output relations.
Other than the concepts mentioned above, it is also mandatory to comprehend additional
key factors; such as neighborhood search, diversification or exploration, intensification or
exploitation, local minima versus global minima, escaping local minima, local search ver-
sus global search, evolutionary computing, and swarm intelligence, etc. Beside these terms,
there include some fundamental strategies used in metaheuristics; such as, keeping balance
between exploration and exploitation, searching for most promising or potential neighbors,
avoiding inappropriate or inefficient neighbors, limiting search from entering into unpromis-
ing neighbors, etc.

Exploration versus exploitation Exploration and exploitation (also referred to as diversifi-

cation and intensification, divergence and convergence, respectively) are two common and
fundamental features of any optimization method. However, it is highly dependent on the
search philosophy adopted by each metaheuristic. These two features are considered as cor-
nerstones of solving an optimization problem successfully (Črepinšek 2013). Exploration
is the ability to expand search in wide spread domain to explore unvisited areas, whilst
exploitation, via accumulated search experience, allows to focus promising regions (high
quality solutions) to utilize and converge optimally (Khajehzadeh et al. 2011). For mastering
the two features, an efficient algorithm spreads new solutions, via randomization techniques
and random walks, far from current area of search so that explorative move should reach all
the regions within search space accessed at least once. On the other hand, using intensive
local search information about the landscape and past search experience, the algorithm tries
to converge quickly without wasting too many moves (Yang et al. 2015).

Local versus global search metaheuristics Local search optimization algorithms are gener-
ally more exploitative methods [e.g., tabu search (TS) (Glover 1989), greedy randomized
adaptive search procedure (GRASP) (Feo and Resende 1989), and iterated local search (ILS)
(Sttzle 1998), etc.], while global search methods are more explorative in nature [e.g., ant
colony optimization (ACO) (Dorigo et al. 2006), genetic algorithms (GAs) (Holland 1992),
particle swarm optimization (PSO) Eberhart and Kennedy (1995), etc.]. There are also many
hybrid methods which combine local search capability of local search algorithms as an
improvement mechanism in global search or population based metaheuristics (Li and Tian
2015; Pham and Huynh 2015; Sahli et al. 2014).

Single versus population based metaheuristics The number of solutions to be carried in search
process determines whether the metaheuristic is a single-solution (trajectory) or population-
based algorithm. In order to select a metaheuristic for a specific optimization problem, it is
first decided to whether use a trajectory or population based algorithm. Usually, basic single-
solution based algorithms are more exploitation oriented, whereas basic population-based
metaheuristics are more explorative in nature (Boussad et al. 2013). Trajectory methods use
one solution at a time and start with a single initial solution. During the course of iterations,

123
Metaheuristic research: a comprehensive survey

Fig. 2 Metaheuristic publications year-wise

these algorithms create a trajectory in the search space. Here, it is noteworthy that the solution
may or may not belong to neighborhood of the current solution. For a population-based
algorithm, a population of multiple solutions is generated initially. Then, in every iteration,
a set of solutions are manipulated in order to find solutions toward better search areas. These
algorithms either do recombinations of multiple solutions or modify each via the strategy
adopted to enforce exploration and exploitation of the search area (Blum and Roli 2003).
Now that the above discussion has already established preliminary knowledge about meta-
heuristics, the upcoming sections explore the depth of literature through following research
questions.

3.2 RQ2: what is the intensity of publications in the field of metaheuristics?

The primary data extracted from the collected publications suggest that an extensive research
has been conducted in the field of metaheuristics. Although, the related research has started
as early as after WW-II when operational research was in its infancy, the introduction of
simulated annealing (SA) (Kirkpatrick et al. 1983) in 1983 formally kick-started research
specifically in the field of metaheuristics.
A total of 1222 publications were reported in this study, which were published during the
period of 1983–2016; this does not necessarily imply that all publications in the literature
have been found, there remains much more to be explored. The intensity of publications year-
wise is illustrated in Fig. 2. It is evident from the graph that metaheuristic research attracted
researchers more effectively after 2005, and that until 2010 it had steady growth in the
number of publications. After a jerk in 2011, there was a significant surge in the metaheuristic
research. This, along with experiments, applications, and analysis of metaheuristic methods,
the trend of inventing “nove” metaheuristics shot high till 2015. Meanwhile this period,
some of the authors highlighted the issue of metaphor-based methods, and according to them
such researches hardly presented any scientific contribution to the field of metaheuristic
research (Srensen 2015). As a result of critical publications, until mid of 2016 the factory of

123
 K. Hussain et al.

Table 2 Survey results

S. No. Publisher Number of Type of publications

publications
New Modified Hybrid Reviews Comparisons/ Applications
methods analysis

1 Elsevier 309 54 77 26 55 54 43
2 Springer 273 28 61 24 85 37 38
3 Hindawi 213 14 96 29 11 14 49
4 IEEE Xplore 178 16 51 18 7 21 65
5 ACM Digital 119 5 47 9 27 23 8
Library
6 Other 69 10 11 0 24 8 16
7 Wiley 61 3 7 3 31 5 12
Total 1222 130 350 109 240 162 231

Fig. 3 Publication venues with type of metaheuristic publications

novel metaheuristics reduced its production and real analytical and critical research raised
its pillars. While collecting primary data for this study, it was witnessed that currently most
of the authors have endorsed the issues highlighted in some of the recent critical studies
(Yang 2012). The trend is now moving towards actual scientific contribution that involves
mathematical analysis of metaheuristic performance instead of just measuring squared errors
for performance comparisons.
It is obvious from Table 2 and Fig. 3 that the most focused avenue for publishing meta-
heuristic literature was Elsevier followed by Springer with highest number of reviews,
surveys, chapters, and articles among other avenues. Whereas, Hindawi published the most
number of modified metaheuristics. Besides being top contributor to metaheuristic research,
Elsevier was also top priority by researchers for introducing their novel metaheuristic tech-
niques.

123
Metaheuristic research: a comprehensive survey

Fig. 4 Domains of metaheuristic applications

The primary data collected in this study revealed around 140 metaheuristics (listed in
“Appendix A”) applied in diversified range of fields broadly in the area of science and tech-
nology, economics, and daily life. Fig. 4 infers that mostly metaheuristics have been applied
and tested on numerical problems which include continuous and discrete, constrained and
unconstrained, single and multi-objective optimization problems, etc. Data mining is another
field of interest mostly chosen by metaheuristic researchers, which includes optimization
tasks involved in classification, prediction, clustering, and system modeling, etc. Among top
practical applications, metaheursitics have been utilized to find optimum solutions for power
generation and distribution, and electronics board designing in the field of electrical and elec-
tronics. Many industrial applications require scheduling jobs to be assigned on sequential
or parallel processes in order to optimized cost. Another promising area of metaheuristic
applications is combinatorial optimization problems ranging from facility location problems
to set-covering, to more difficult multi-agent task allocation in extreme teams, etc. Other
applications among top ten areas include communications (networking, telecommunication,
antennas and radar design, etc.), transportation (traveling salesman problem, routing, shortest
path, etc.), engineering (mechanical designs, aircraft and ship components design, etc.), civil
engineering (structural design, buildings and bridges, construction, etc.), and information
and communications technology—ICT (cloud and grid computing, swarm robotics, security,
software development, etc.). The applications of metaheuristics need to be explored in the
areas of mining, traffic control, manufacturing and production, etc.
The metaheuristic-wise applications in different areas are presented in Table 3. The
acronyms of the abbreviations in this table can be found in “Appendix A”. Overall, Fig. 5
provides evidence of metaheuristics that are popular according to the number of publica-

123
 Table 3 Metaheuristic applications on different domains

Methods Agriculture Biology Business, Chemical Civil Civil Combinatorial Communications Control Data mining Electrical and Emergency
finance, process aviation engineering optimization engineering electronics and disaster

123
economics engineering management

AAA
AAA2
ABC 1 2 4 12 7
ABO
ACO 1 1 3 1 1 1 10 9 1 10 3 1
ACS
ADS
AE
AFSA 2
ANS
AntStar 1
ARFO
BA 1 2 2
BB-BC 4
BBMO 1
BBO 1 1 1 1
BCO 1 1
BDO
Beehive
BFOA 2
BSA 3
BSO 1
BSOA 2 2
K. Hussain et al.
 Table 3 continued

Methods Agriculture Biology Business, Chemical Civil Civil Combinatorial Communications Control Data mining Electrical and Emergency
finance, process aviation engineering optimization engineering electronics and disaster
economics engineering management

CA
CBM
CBO 1
CFO
CGO
CGS 1
CPDE
Cricket
Metaheuristic research: a comprehensive survey

CRO
CROA 1 1 1
CrowSA
CS 3 1 2 2 8 3
CSO
CSOA 1 1 1
CSS 1 1
CyberSA
DE 1 1 1 3 1 2 3
DEO 1
DS 1
EA 1
EBO 1
eBPA
EFO

123
 Table 3 continued

Methods Agriculture Biology Business, Chemical Civil Civil Combinatorial Communications Control Data mining Electrical and Emergency
finance, process aviation engineering optimization engineering electronics and disaster

123
economics engineering management

EM 1 1
EO
EP 1
ES 1 1 1
ESA
FA 1 6 3 3 2 1 6 1
FASO 1
FEO
FFO 1 1
FPA
FWA 1 1 2 1
GA 1 3 1 2 1 8 10 4 6 1
GB 1
GBMO
GEA
GGS 1
GHOA
GRASP 1 1
GSA 1 1 1
GSO
GSOA
GWO 1
HBMO 1
K. Hussain et al.
 Table 3 continued

Methods Agriculture Biology Business, Chemical Civil Civil Combinatorial Communications Control Data mining Electrical and Emergency
finance, process aviation engineering optimization engineering electronics and disaster
economics engineering management

HS 3 3 1 4 6 2
HSS
IBA 1
ICA 2
ILS 1
ISA
ISOA
IWD 1
Metaheuristic research: a comprehensive survey

IWO 1
JA
JOA
KCA
KHA 2
LaF
LASDA 1
LOA
LS 2 1 2
LSA
LSO
MBA 1
MBO
MBOA 1
MCSS 1

123
 Table 3 continued

Methods Agriculture Biology Business, Chemical Civil Civil Combinatorial Communications Control Data mining Electrical and Emergency
finance, process aviation engineering optimization engineering electronics and disaster

123
economics engineering management

MFO
MHSA
Monkey
ODMA
Plant
PSO 2 6 1 9 9 13 3 27 28 2
PVS
RA 1
RMO
RO
RRA
RROA
SA 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 4 1
SAC
SCA
SCE
SDMSFA 1
SDS
SEOA
SFLA 2 1
K. Hussain et al.
 Table 3 continued

Methods Agriculture Biology Business, Chemical Civil Civil Combinatorial Communications Control Data mining Electrical and Emergency
finance, process aviation engineering optimization engineering electronics and disaster
economics engineering management

SFS 1
SGA
SharkSmell
SLO
SMO
SNSO
SOA 1 1
SOS 1
Metaheuristic research: a comprehensive survey

SS PR 1 1
SSO 3
SSOA 1
TLBO 1 1 2
TS 2 1 1 1 1 4 6 1 1
VCS
VDSA
VNS 5 1 1 1
VSA
WCA 1
WDO 1
WEO 1
WFA 1

123
 Table 3 continued

Methods Agriculture Biology Business, Chemical Civil Civil Combinatorial Communications Control Data mining Electrical and Emergency
finance, process aviation engineering optimization engineering electronics and disaster

123
economics engineering management

WPA
WS 1
WSA
WWO

Methods Engineering ICT Image Manufacturing Medical Military Mining Music Numerical Oil and Scheduling Traffic Transportation Water
design processing and production and defence problems energy control management

AAA 2
AAA2 2
ABC 2 4 2 2 29 3 1 1
ABO 1
ACO 4 1 1 10 6 8
ACS 2 1
ADS 1
AE 1
AFSA 1 2 1
ANS 1
AntStar
ARFO 1
BA 1 1 8 1
BB-BC 1
BBMO
BBO 2 6 1
K. Hussain et al.
 Table 3 continued

Methods Engineering ICT Image Manufacturing Medical Military Mining Music Numerical Oil and Scheduling Traffic Transportation Water
design processing and production and defence problems energy control management

BCO 1 1
BDO 1
Beehive 1
BFOA 1 5
BSA 1
BSO
BSOA 1 2
CA 1
CBM 1
Metaheuristic research: a comprehensive survey

CBO
CFO 1
CGO 1
CGS 1
CPDE 1
Cricket 1
CRO 1 3 1
CROA
CrowSA 1
CS 2 2 1 13 2
CSO 1 1
CSOA
CSS 1 1
CyberSA 1

123
 Table 3 continued

Methods Engineering ICT Image Manufacturing Medical Military Mining Music Numerical Oil and Scheduling Traffic Transportation Water
design processing and production and defence problems energy control management

123
DE 2 1 1 1 20 1 3
DEO 1 1
DS 1
EA 1 1 3
EBO 2 1
eBPA 1
EFO 1
EM 1 1
EO 2
EP
ES 1 1 2
ESA 1
FA 1 7
FASO
FEO 1
FFO 1 1
FPA 1 2 1
FWA 2 8
GA 1 2 1 1 1 6 4 11 1 4
GB 1
GBMO 1
GEA 1
GGS
GHOA 1
K. Hussain et al.
 Table 3 continued

Methods Engineering ICT Image Manufacturing Medical Military Mining Music Numerical Oil and Scheduling Traffic Transportation Water
design processing and production and defence problems energy control management

GRASP 3 1 1
GSA 5 1
GSO 1 3 1
GSOA 1
GWO
HBMO 1 1
HS 3 2 2 3 20 2 3 3 3
HSS 1
IBA
Metaheuristic research: a comprehensive survey

ICA 2 2
ILS 1 1 1
ISA 1 1
ISOA 1
IWD 1 2
IWO 2 1
JA 1
JOA 1
KCA 2
KHA 3 1
LaF 1
LASDA
LOA 1
LS 1 1

123
 Table 3 continued

Methods Engineering ICT Image Manufacturing Medical Military Mining Music Numerical Oil and Scheduling Traffic Transportation Water
design processing and production and defence problems energy control management

123
LSA 1
LSO 1 1
MBA 2 1 1
MBO 2 1
MBOA
MCSS 1
MFO 1 1
MHSA 1
Monkey 1
ODMA 1
Plant 1
PSO 11 8 3 2 1 1 83 4 10 1 9 1
PVS 1
RA 2
RMO 1
RO 1
RRA 1
RROA 1
SA 1 1 3 2
SAC 1
SCA 1 1
SCE 1
SDMSFA
K. Hussain et al.
 Table 3 continued

Methods Engineering ICT Image Manufacturing Medical Military Mining Music Numerical Oil and Scheduling Traffic Transportation Water
design processing and production and defence problems energy control management

SDS 1
SEOA 1
SFLA 1 1 1
SFS 1
SGA 1
SharkSmell 1
SLO 1
SMO 2
SNSO 1
Metaheuristic research: a comprehensive survey

SOA 2
SOS 1
SS& PR 2
SSO 1
SSOA 1 1 3
TLBO 1 9 1
TS 1 4 8 5
VCS 1 1
VDSA 1
VNS 1 3 4 2
VSA 1
WCA 1 2
WDO 1

123
 Table 3 continued

Methods Engineering ICT Image Manufacturing Medical Military Mining Music Numerical Oil and Scheduling Traffic Transportation Water
design processing and production and defence problems energy control management

123
WEO
WFA 1
WPA 1
WS
WSA 1
WWO 2 1
K. Hussain et al.
Metaheuristic research: a comprehensive survey

Fig. 5 Number of publications of metaheuristics

tions; here only those which had 10 or more publications in our database are shown. Among
other metaheuristic methods, PSO was the most attractive technique. There seems significant
distinction between PSO and the rest of the methods. PSO has gained immense popularity
amongst researchers due to simplicity and effectiveness in plenty of scientific and industrial
applications. After this method, artificial bee colony (ABC) (Karaboga 2005), ant colony
optimization (ACO) (Dorigo et al. 2006), and GA have been extensively applied by majority
of researchers. On the other hand, in classic metaheuristics, TS, differential evolution (DE)
(Storn and Price 1997), SA, variable neighborhood search (VNS) (Mladenovi and Hansen
1997), and ILS are still being widely published due to their robustness in variety of optimiza-
tion problems. Among modern methods, harmony search (HS) (Geem et al. 2001), cuckoo
search (CS) (Yang and Deb 2009), bat algorithm (BA) (Yang 2010), firefly algorithm (FA)
(Yang 2008), and fireworks algorithm (FWA) (Tan and Zhu 2010) have shown efficiency
of producing quality solutions. Some of the latest metaheuristics, such as teaching learn-
ing based optimization (TLBO) (Rao et al. 2011), biogeography-based optimization (BBO)
(Simon 2008), and bacterial foraging optimization algorithm (BFOA) (Zhao and Wang 2016)
have also generated convincing results.
After being aware of metaheuristic techniques, the following question dives deeper for
determining the inspirations fascinated researchers to invent the new methods.

3.3 RQ3: what are the most frequently used metaphors or design patterns to
develop new metaheuristic algorithms?

According to the primary data collected in this study, the metaphors of the metaheuristics
available today are taken from nine disciplines considerably are Biology, Physics, Com-
putation, Psychology, and Chemistry (see Fig. 6 for complete list of disciplines). Most of
the metaheuristics are bio-based, and other than this, there also exist significant number of
methods adopted from Physics, for example, law of motion or gravitation (Rashedi et al.

123
 K. Hussain et al.

Fig. 6 Metaphor disciplines adopted by researchers for designing metaheuristics

2009), electromagnetics (Abedinpourshotorban et al. 2016), etc. The researchers have also
used metaphors from our daily life; such as, interior design (Gandomi 2014), sports (Osaba
et al. 2014), music (Geem et al. 2001), and vocational skills (Qin 2009), etc. Interestingly,
some of the metaphors have also been adopted from the disciplines that deal with how
humans rule territories and run economic systems, including Economics (Atashpaz-Gargari
and Lucas 2007) and Military (Sun et al. 2016). Some of the methods were so confusing
in terms of putting them in one group, so we just grouped them into Computation cate-
gory.
Generally, metaheuristic methods have been designed mostly mimicking the living and
survival systems of insects, animals, and birds. Fig. 7 shows top ten leading metaphors
mostly preferred by researchers. Among these, insects is the most favorite metaphor for
mimicking the social behavior in order to design efficient optimization methods, and
among insects, bees is the top trend followed by ants. Other than these species, the bio-
logical behaviors of fireflies, spiders, and bacteria have also been explored in the hunt
of producing powerful metaheuristics. The second most popular trend is natural evolu-
tion the Darwin theory of survival. Some of the animals, such as bats, fish, cat, and
monkeys have also attracted metaheuristic designers. Other than these mentioned pre-
viously, birds, human, plant, water, ecosystem, electromagnetic force, and gravitation
have been interestingly expressed metaphorically in the designs of metaheuristic meth-
ods.
When designed a new metaheuristic algorithm, the inventor is supposed to prove its
validity through employing some performance validation criteria. These criteria are then
compared with counterpart methods to prove effectiveness of an algorithm. The commonly
used performance validation criteria are investigated in the surveyed literature in the following
question.

123
Metaheuristic research: a comprehensive survey

Fig. 7 Metaphors adopted by researchers for designing new metaheuristics

3.4 RQ4: what analytical techniques have been used for validating performance
of metaheuristics?

Through this question we have tried to determine about the validating techniques used to
investigate performance of metaheuristics. In order to analyze the performance of meta-
heuristic algorithms, researchers have most commonly used benchmark test functions, such
as those used in Civicioglu (2013), Doan and lmez (2015), and in Salimi (2015), etc. To name
a few, among the wide variety of test functions are Sphere, Rastrigin, Ackley, etc. A detail
about these functions is available in Karaboga and Akay (2009). Other than the test functions,
some benchmark engineering design problems have also been solved by using metaheuris-
tic methods to measure and compare performances. Some example problems are pressure
vessel design problem, compression spring design problem, welded beam design problem
(Li et al. 2016), truss structure problems of multi-story braced frames (Kaveh and Farhoudi
2016), and gear train design problem (Mirjalili 2015). Rest of the problems which have been
used to solve via metaheuristics include classification and clustering problems (Eberhart
and Kennedy 1995; Marinakis et al. 2009), multiple knapsack problems (Arasomwan and
Adewumi 2014), traveling salesman problem (TSP) and vehicle routing problems (Osaba
et al. 2013; Iordache 2010), (Meignan et al. 2010), scheduling problems (Bandieramonte
et al. 2010; Zheng 2015; Li et al. 2015), and prediction problems (Pan 2012; Gonçalves
et al. 2008). Authors in Civicioglu (2013) have used maximum number of test functions (75)
while introducing backtracking search optimization algorithm (BSOA). At least, 1 test func-
tion is used in Wei (2013), Bouhmala (2015), and Yang and Wang (2007) when measuring
performances of metaheuristic algorithms raindrop algorithm (RA), variable depth search
algorithm (VDSA), and water flow-like algorithm (WFA), respectively.

123
 K. Hussain et al.

In order to analyze the performance of metaheuristics, some validation criteria have been
considered. These include best, worst, mean, and standard deviation of objective function
values obtained over specific number of runs. Other than these methods, some of the statistical
analysis techniques have also been utilized such as, p value obtained by Wilcoxon Signed-
Rank test, z test, and NOVA test, etc. (e.g., Uymaz et al. 2015; Caraveo et al. 2015; and Salimi
2015, etc.).
While comparing performances of metaheuristic methods, the inventors have compared
their new methods with existing techniques. Mostly, researchers have compared their newly
introduced metaheuristics with PSO, GA, and ABC or their variants (James and Li 2015;
Abedinia et al. 2014; Chen et al. 2015). Other than these popular methods, ACO, DE, and
evolutionary strategies (ES) and their variants have also been used for comparative analysis
of results, see for example (Salcedo-Sanz et al. 2014; Kaveh and Farhoudi 2016), and (Li
et al. 2015).

4 Related work

Due to enormous success of metaheuristic algorithms in effectively solving wide variety

of optimization problems, extensive literature has been published until today. This section
specifically focuses on highlighting research performed on metaheuristics techniques by
considering only those survey studies that are conducted purely on evolution of metaheuristic
methods. The survey papers have been carefully selected and studied so that a summary of
current picture of metaheuristic research shall be drawn.
In Mahdavi et al. (2015), Mahdavi and Rahnamayan reinforced the importance of meta-
heuristic research as there have been specialized conferences, journals, websites, and research
groups established. Creating a hierarchical classification, this study identifies two main
approaches in solving optimization problems more efficiently: cooperative coevolution (CC)
algorithms and non-decomposition methods. According to the authors, the earlier approach
divides optimization problems into subcomponents and solves these components indepen-
dently, and later on merging together to form an aggregated solution. Non-decomposition
methods, on the other hand, solve any optimization problem as whole. Highlighting some
of the crucial challenges to metaheuristics, the study contends that metaheuristic methods
suffer from loss of efficiency and add up computational cost when the dimensions of the
problem in hand increase significantly. The curse of dimensionality increases with problem
size and landscape complexity making the exploration of potential solutions sterner. Some
of the gaps and future directions have also been presented in this study, which are discussed
in the subsequent sections.
Revisiting history of evolutionary and swarm intelligence algorithms, Zelinka in Zelinka
(2015) officiated the beginning of evolutionary algorithms back in 1960s and 1970s when
genetic algorithms, evolutionary programming and evolutionary strategy were introduced
(Holland 1992; Fogel and Corne 2002; Schwefel 1977; Rechenberg 1994), respectively.
Subsequently, the field of metaheuristics properly kicked off by the introduction of SS&PR
(Glover 1997), PSO (Eberhart and Kennedy 1995), DE (Storn and Price 1997), and ACO
(Dorigo 1992). The main objective of the study is to answer the question whether the dynamics
of swarm and evolutionary algorithms can be visualized in order to improve their performance.
The authors argue that since complex network structure is hidden behind these metaheuris-
tics, it is possible to control their behavior through mapping a complex network structure
of solutions (individuals or search agents). For detailed explanation and illustration of the

123
Metaheuristic research: a comprehensive survey

argument, this paper has also depicted the concept in graphs. The study also claims that
swarm and evolutionary algorithms can solve wide class of complex optimization problems
if equipped with chaotic dynamics.
The two contradictory but important building blocks of any metaheuristic algorithm:
exploration and exploitation have been surveyed in Črepinšek (2013) using nearly one
hundred papers. The core motivation behind this study is the two appealing concerns: (a)
components controlling exploration and exploitation of a metaheuristic; (b) how to bring bal-
ance between them. The authors contend that there exists limited understanding on how these
two factors affect performance of any specific method; therefore, strong drip on exploration
and exploitation can help metaheuristic researchers develop efficient methods instead of just
relying on oversimplified concepts. Having said that, in evolutionary algorithms (i.e. GA, ES,
EP), mutation, crossover, and selection are the main sources of controlling exploration and
exploitation yet it is life-and-death for an algorithm to decide the types and approaches of
these sources. Although, the survey reported significantly varying approaches to maintaining
the tradeoff balance between exploration and exploitation in evolutionary algorithms; overall,
some of the prominent approaches are parameter tuning, population size control, and diversity
maintenance through deterministic, adaptive, and self-adaptive techniques. Authors in Bous-
sad et al. (2013) surveyed some of the popular metaheuristics in the groups of single-solution
(i.e TS, SA, and GRASP etc.) and population-based methods (e.g., GA, DE, ACO, and PSO,
etc.), and found certain similarities: inspired by nature, rely on randomization instead of
gradient information, and maintain several parameters to be tuned according to the problem
being solved. Moreover, the study also contends that basic single-solution based methods
are mainly exploitation oriented, whereas population-based methods are often exploration
oriented. However, the study terms the fundamental approach adopted by all such algorithms
as adaptive memory programming where the once visited search locations are maintained
in a memory, and based on it, new locations are visited. The memory is updated with the
information about the latest locations visited. Furthermore, this survey also determines that
the number of parameters in a metaheuristic algorithm is directly related to its complexity.
Finding good initial parameters is also a tedious job. Therefore, the more suitable approach
to combat this problem is emerged as adaptive metaheuristics that self-tune the parameters
based on objective function values. Interesting gaps and future directions have been proposed
by this study, which are discussed in the later section.
In an interesting study, Yang in (2011) gave an overview of metaheuristic convergence
and efficiency analysis as well as presents some open questions that need to be answered.
According to the study, even though metaheuristics have been observed to have successfully
solved wide range of NP hard problems, this field is still younger than combinatorial and
continuous optimization in terms of convergence, complexity, and runtime analysis. In fact,
there is lack of mathematical analysis, and mostly ad-hoc approaches have been adopted
in literature to measure performance of metaheuristic algorithms. It is observed that mean
and standard deviation of objective function values on well-known optimization problems
have been examined. If these values stay better than counterpart algorithms, the method in
hand is said to be efficient. That is, convergence and efficiency analysis are still challenging.
This is due to the fact that the components of metaheuristic algorithms are highly non-linear,
complex, and stochastic in behavior. To address this, some of the studies with convergence
analysis have been reviewed in order to provide a framework for analyzing convergence and
efficiency of metaheuristics. The framework provided by the study can be a useful research
direction for developing tools that may help analyze randomization and convergence. The
study also contends that randomization, other than exploration and exploitation, is an impor-
tant component of any metaheuristic technique, which helps get out of local optima positions.

123
 K. Hussain et al.

The randomization techniques range from the simple uniform distributions to complex meth-
ods like Monte Carlo (Gamerman and Lopes 2006), or from Brownian Random Walk (Spitzer
2013) to Levy Flight (Gutowski 2001). The work suggests that all the metaheuristics with
multiple agents with interacting paths can be analyzed using general framework of Markov
Chain Monte Carlo. The study also raises significant open questions yet to be answered in
metaheuristic literature; discussed in the later section.
Optimization problems, in real-world, are highly complex and computationally expen-
sive demand extra efforts (in terms of computation as well as time) from metaheuristics to
evaluate the fitness of a group of candidate solutions. With the advancements in surrogate
modeling, it has been proved that fitness function of such problems can be approximated
to reduce computational cost to a limited budget when metaheuristic algorithm is evalu-
ating a population of solutions. Highlighting the progress made in this particular area of
metaheuristc research, Yaochu in Jin (2011) surveyed literature of successful applications of
surrogate assisted evolutionary algorithm and suggested useful future directions. According
to the survey, the major challenge in surrogate assisted methods is to avoid any possible mis-
approximation of surrogate that may mislead a metaheuristic algorithm by false optimum.
To address this, various methods have been proposed which include learning mechanisms of
neural networks, etc. Since, this area of research lags behind strong theoretical foundations,
much work needs to be done on metaheuristic properties; such as, convergence analysis, in
relation with managing surrogate related issues.
Based on newly emerging research domain quantum-inspired evolutionary algorithms,
the work (Zhang 2011) revisited existing but limited literature; as only three categories of
algorithms found: EDQAs, QEAs, and QIEAs. This study provides comprehensive details
about this potential area of metaheuristic research. Researchers interested in this area may
refer to the mentioned paper. According to the survey, authors (Alba 2005) revealed the use-
fulness of quantum computing into evolutionary algorithms. QIEAs employ the concepts of
quantum inspired bits and gates to represent and generate offspring. Moreover, these algo-
rithms are highly exploitative to search global optimum solutions even with tiny population.
Summarizing the literature reviewed and experiments conducted on benchmark functions,
the study states that QIEAs produce superior results as compared to other canonical EAs.
Furthermore, advancement in this area may reveal robust algorithms for highly complex
problems through quantum parallelism. The study also highlighted considerable gaps that
need significant future work.
Another interesting but not yet fully unfolded area of operational research is parallel
metaheuristics employed on parallel computing paradigm of grids and clouds. Authors (Alba
2005) investigated recent advances in literature related to parallel metaheuristics that employ
parallelism in order to reduce search time, and at the same time, produce high quality solu-
tions. According to the study, there are three models based on trajectory algorithms: parallel
exploration and evaluation of the neighborhood, parallel multi-start, and parallel evaluation
of single solution. On the other hand, population-based algorithms have also been applied on
parallel computing through two approaches: computational parallelization and population
parallelization. In the prior approach, operations on individuals are performed in parallel,
whereas the later approach divides population into subpopulations to be executed in parallel.
The study reports that parallel metaheuristics have not only been tested on popular bench-
mark problems including TSP, routing, and scheduling, but also have found applications
in the domains of science, business, and industry. These parallel implementations employed
PSO, ACO, and other EAs. There are specific software and hardware platforms to be used for
parallel implementations of algorithms which have been discussed in the survey. According
to authors, mostly, object oriented platform (C++ and Java) for software engineering has been

123
Metaheuristic research: a comprehensive survey

utilized for parallel metaheuristics; and among the developed frameworks, MALLBA and
ParadisEO are the most comprehensive tools to be considered while implementing parallel
metaheuristics. There are some theoretical developments regarding this work, the study has
mentioned few studies which can be referred for more information.
A more detailed analysis of new trends and potential research lines has been discussed in
the subdomains of technology, algorithms, methodology, and challenges, and discussed in
the following section.

5 Research gaps and future work

Despite success of metaheuristic methods on diversified areas of science, engineering and

technology, there remains sufficient gap that needs to be filled in order to reach maturity level
as compared to other established fields of research. This section helps identify some of the
related but potential areas of research that may build future literature.
Mahdavi et al. (2015) foresee the design of decomposition methods, with great perfor-
mance and accuracy, as potential research area while solving real-world imbalanced problems
with large decision variables. Theoretical foundations for investigating metaheuristic char-
acters are still lagging behind. According to the authors, it will help improve performance of
metaheuristics. Although, benchmark test functions were developed to represent imbalance
in large scale optimization problems, however there is a need of theoretical evidence that
proves this fact. Moreover, this study also raises an important question “how these common
benchmark test set and evaluation criteria reflect the characteristics of real-world problems?”
Another future potential research area is highlighted in this study; that is, scalability of meta-
heuristic methods for solving optimization problems with dimensions greater than 1000.
Zelinka (2015) highlights some of the gaps in terms of unanswered questions that are
raised based on papers surveyed in the study. Some of the questions can be rephrased into
one as: can control (like chaotification) of swarm and evolutionary algorithms dynamics
significantly improve performance and diversity in search operation? As future directions,
the study proposes some potential research areas that range from swarm robotics to evolvable
hardware to breaking terrorists communication.
Focusing specifically the two important factors in the design of metaheuristic: exploration
and exploitation in evolutionary algorithms, Črepinšek (2013) identified three main gaps
as opportunities for further research. Broadly, we can list them as (a) formal definition of
exploration and exploitation; (b) more deep theoretical understanding on which parts of
evolutionary algorithms contribute to exploration and exploitation, as well as, how and when
to control or balance the ratio between these two elements; and (c) some direct measures
are required to gage the influence of different approaches and techniques of manipulating
exploration and exploitation in evolutionary algorithms.
Boussad et al. (2013) advocate that in the absence of theoretical foundations, the analysis
of metaheuristic performance is performed based on experiments with mean and standard
deviation as validation criteria. More statistical analysis is required for authentic compar-
isons. As interesting future work, the survey intensifies the need of software framework for
metaheuristics that may help develop, hybrid, and use methods without building from scratch.
The framework should also be able to provide analysis and comparison facilities. Another
potential research area is complex large scale optimization problems. The optimization prob-
lems with high number of dimensions can be solved through parallel metaheuristic execution
approach hyper-heuristics may help in this. It is often observed that different instances of

123
 K. Hussain et al.

the same optimization problem corresponds to different landscape structure. Therefore, the
third potential research line identified by this study is the landscape structure for developing
better metaheuristic methods.
Despite huge success in solving tough optimization problems, Yang (2011) asserts that it
is hard to affirm mathematically why metaheuristic algorithms are that efficient. Mathemati-
cal analysis of rate of convergence and efficiency help obtain in-depth information about the
behavior of an algorithm on a specific problem. This will help effectively modify existing
or develop new method with authentic (not ad-hoc) results. Few efforts can be witnessed
in literature trying to address this gap, however to reach maturity in this area, metaheuris-
tic researchers need a lot of work in future. Another open area in metaheuristic research
identified by this work is measuring the balance between exploration and exploitation. On
part of comparative performance measurement, the study urges any agreed criteria instead
of just comparing objective function values and number of function evaluations. The authors
of this research foresee more intelligent, self-adaptive, or in other words self-optimizing
next-generation metaheuristics in future. These algorithms will be smart enough to tune their
parameters in order to find optimum quality solution with minimum computational cost. In
another article (Yang 2012), the same author maintains the challenge of large-scale problems
to be solved by metaheuristics; as mostly these algorithms are implemented and tested on
small benchmark test problems with number of design variables ranging from few to hun-
dred. Many engineering design, business and industry problems involve thousands and even
millions of variables. Moreover, the researcher also predicts the next eight to ten years to be
significant in addressing this open problem residing both in theory and practice.
As a potential and emerging research area of evolutionary algorithms inspired by quan-
tum computing, there are few gaps that are highlighted by Zhang (2011). Like in the case of
other metaheuristics, this area also needs theoretical basis with reference to searching opti-
mal solutions, searching global optimality, and convergence. Additionally, more advanced
characteristics related to quantum computing such as, quantum registers, entanglement, inter-
ference, controlled quantum-inspired gates, etc. are to be explored for developing efficient
algorithms. As QIEAs are mostly compared with EAs only, these algorithms should be further
compared with other popular metaheuristics like PSO and ACO.
Another key area of research that needs attention by metaheuristic community is intelligent
sampling and surrogate modeling. Through intelligent sampling, the bounds of problem space
are reduced for restricted searching to best neighborhoods, whereas surrogate methods assist
metaheuristics in function evaluations of highly computationally expensive functions through
approximating the actual objective function. The limited work in this direction has shown
significant potential. For example, Mann and Singh (2017) improved the performance of
ABC by incorporating a sampling technique called Student’s-t distribution. Hu et al. (2008)
implemented wheel neighborhood relation (one of the topologies for population distribution)
with PSO for using fewer samples with better optimality for designing the model in hand.
A promising but not fully explored direction is to combine exact algorithms and meta-
heuristics to solve optimization problems. Different approaches have been introduced in this
regard (Jourdan et al. 2009; Puchinger and Raidl 2005), which are mainly aimed at achiev-
ing better and efficient solutions early in the iterations. This was illustrated by Rossel and
Jahuira in Jahuira (2002) by combining GA with exact techniques Branch and Bound, Min-
imal Spanning Tree, and Backtracking Algorithms for solving combinatorial optimization
problem Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP). The paper achieved optimal solutions in few
generations and small population size. Another example is (Khabzaoui et al. 2008) com-
bined exact method with evolutionary algorithm GA for solving data mining problem of rule
discovery. This combination accelerated the convergence of the algorithm to best solutions.

123
Metaheuristic research: a comprehensive survey

Utilizing modern technology of parallel computing, metaheuristics have also been imple-
mented in parallel or distributed computation. Exploring metaheuristics in this particular
area, Alba (2005) highlights some important research lines to further strengthen outcomes.
Since the focus of this current study is metaheuristics, therefore, we only extract from the
paper the key issues related to parallel metaheuristics. Just like the gaps mentioned above,
this area also deals with the same issues like theoretical foundations, convergence analysis,
statistical measurements, and exploration versus exploration altogether totally in a different
paradigm of parallelism. Efficient use of population in distributed architecture will lead to
powerful metaheuristics for big problems as compared to sequential ones.

6 Discussion and concluding remarks

It is ascertained in literature written in recent decades that metaheuristics have solved opti-
mization problems with ample efficiency and reasonable cost of computation as compared to
exact methods. The success of metaheuristics is topped by the concerns about some important
gaps and enormous research to be held to reach maturity level as of Physics, Mathematics,
and other optimization fields in terms of strong theoretical and mathematical foundations as
well as convergence analysis.
The literature surveyed in this research ranges from introduction of new methods, hybrid
of two or more metaheuristic or heuristic techniques, surveys, comparisons and performance
analysis, and wider range of applications including engineering, business, transportation, and
social sciences, etc. This systematic literature review produced a database of 1222 publica-
tions appeared from the year 1983 to mid-2016. The designed five research questions laid
the foundation this study, and helped extract meaningful information from the database to
draw a comprehensive picture of current status of metaheuristic research. More importantly,
this study provides a platform for new metaheuristic researchers including new PhD. fellows
for commencing their research by finding potential research topics highlighted here.
The idea of solving optimization problems through heuristic approach was envisioned
more than forty years ago when Operations Research was in its infancy during WWII. The
formal kick off of metaheuristic research took place when initial metaheuristic methods like
Tabu Search and Simulated Annealing were introduced in 1680s. However, the boom of this
field of research was witnessed in 1990s after the wider applications of PSO, ACO and GAs.
Past twenty years have been flooded with “novel” metaheuristics due to attractive approach
of mimicking one or the other metaphor from the disciplines of Biology, Chemistry, and
Physics, etc. Despite of enormous success in wide variety of applications, however, according
to (Koziel and Yang 2011) this has harmed research in its true sense of scientific findings.
Moreover, author in Srensen et al. (2017) is optimistic about the future of this field as the
more research is to be conducted based on theoretical and mathematical foundations. To
list down future potential research lines, the gaps identified in this study are summarized as
follows:
– It is observed that performance analysis of metaheuristic methods have been mostly
performed based on simple mean of objective function values, standard deviation, and
some basic statistical tests on certain test functions; which is an ad-hoc approach. More
well-established and commonly agreed performance validation criteria are required in
order to establish firm conclusions about the efficiency of any method being introduced.
– Theoretical and mathematical foundations are required for different components of meta-
heuristics; such as, exploration versus exploitation, local optimum versus global optimum
search ability, and convergence, etc.

123
 K. Hussain et al.

– Scalable metaheuristics to be designed that are able to self-adopt, self-tune, or self-evolve

in order to cope with complex and highly imbalanced landscapes of large optimization
problems with massive decision variables.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM) for
supporting this research under Postgraduate Incentive Research Grant, Vote No.U560. This work was supported
in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 61672334, 61773119, and 61771297.

A Appendix

See Table 4.

Table 4 Acronyms of metaheuristics abbreviations used in this study

Abbreviations Acronyms

AAA Alienated Ant Algorithm (Uymaz et al. 2015)

AAA2 Artificial Algae Algorithm (Bandieramonte et al. 2010)
ABC Artificial Bee Colony (Karaboga 2005)
ABO African Buffalo Optimization (Odili and Mohmad Kahar 2016)
ACO Ant Colony Optimization (Dorigo et al. 2006)
ACS Ant Colony System (Dorigo and Gambardella 1997)
ADS Adaptive Dimensional Search (Hasançebi and Azad 2015)
AE Adaptive Evolution (Viveros Jiménez et al. 2009)
AFSA Artificial Fish Swarm Algorithm (Huang and Chen 2015)
ANS Across Neighborhood Search (Wu 2016)
AntStar AntStar (Faisal et al. 2016)
ARFO Artificial Root Foraging Algorithm (Ma et al. 2014)
BA Bet Algorithm (Yang 2010)
BB-BC Big BangBig Crunch (Erol and Eksin 2006)
BBMO Bumble Bees Mating Optimization (Marinakis and Marinaki 2014)
BBO Biogeography Based Optimization (Simon 2008)
BCO Bacterial Colony Optimization (Niu and Wang 2012)
BDO Bottlenose Dolphin Optimization (Kiruthiga et al. 2015)
Beehive Beehive (Munoz et al. 2009)
BFOA Bacterial Foraging Optimization Algorithm (Zhao and Wang 2016)
BSA Backtracking Search Optimization Algorithm (Civicioglu 2013)
BSO Bees Swarm Optimization (Djenouri et al. 2012)
BSOA Brain Storm Optimization Algorithm (Shi 2011)
CA Cultural Algorithm (Ali et al. 2016)
CBM Coalition-Based Metaheuristic (Meignan et al. 2010)
CBO Colliding Bodies Optimization (Kaveh and Mahdavi 2014)
CFO Central Force Optimization (Liu and Tian 2015)
CGO Contour Gradient Optimization (Wu et al. 2013)
CGS Consultant-Guided Search (Iordache 2010)
CPDE Cloud Particles Differential Evolution (Li et al. 2015)

123
Metaheuristic research: a comprehensive survey

Table 4 continued

Abbreviations Acronyms

Cricket Cricket Algorithm (Canayaz and Karcı 2015)

CRO Chemical Reaction Optimization (Li et al. 2015)
CROA Coral Reefs Optimization Algorithm (Salcedo-Sanz et al. 2014)
CrowSA Crow Search Algorithm (Askarzadeh 2016)
CS Cuckoo Search (Yang and Deb 2014)
CSO Chicken Swarm Optimization (Meng et al. 2014)
CSOA Cat Swarm Optimization Algorithm (Crawford et al. 2015)
CSS Charged System Search (Kaveh and Talatahari 2010)
CyberSA Cyber Swarm Algorithm (Yin et al. 2010)
DE Differential Evaluation (Storn and Price 1997)
DEO Dolphin Echolocation Optimization (Kaveh and Farhoudi 2016)
DS Differential Search (Sulaiman et al. 2014)
EA Evolutionary Algorithm (Angeline et al. 1994)
EBO Ecogeography-Based Optimization (Zhang et al. 2017)
eBPA enhanced Best Performance Algorithm (Chetty and Adewumi 2015)
EFO Electromagnetic Field Optimization (Abedinpourshotorban et al. 2016)
EM Electromagnetism Metaheuristic (Filipović et al. 2013)
EO Extremal Optimization (Chen et al. 2006)
EP Evolutionary Programming (Yao et al. 1999)
ES Evolution Strategies (Beyer and Schwefel 2002)
ESA Elephant Search Algorithm (Deb et al. 2015)
FA Firefly Algorithm (Yang 2008)
FASO Foraging Agent Swarm Optimization (Barresi 2014)
FEO Fish Electrolocation Optimization (Haldar and Chakraborty 2017)
FFO Fruit Fly Optimization (Pan 2012)
FPA Flower Pollination Algorithm (Wang and Zhou 2014)
FWA Fireworks Algorithm (Tan and Zhu 2010)
GA Genetic Algorithm (Holland 1992)
GB Golden Ball (Osaba et al. 2014)
GBMO Gases Brownian Motion Optimization (Abdechiri et al. 2013)
GEA Gradient Evolution Algorithm (Kuo and Zulvia 2015)
GGS Gradient Gravitational Search (Dash and Sahu 2015)
GHOA Green Herons Optimization Algorithm (Sur and Shukla 2013)
GRASP Greedy Randomized Adaptive Search Procedures (Feo and Resende 1989)
GSA Gravitational Search Algorithm (Rashedi et al. 2009)
GSO Glowworm Swarm Optimization (He et al. 2006)
GSOA Galactic Swarm Optimization Algorithm (Muthiah-Nakarajan and Noel
2016)
GWO Grey Wolf Optimizer (Li and Wang 2015)
HBMO Honey Bees Mating Optimization (Marinakis and Marinaki 2011)
HS Harmony Search (Geem et al. 2001)

123
 K. Hussain et al.

Table 4 continued

Abbreviations Acronyms

HSS Hyper-Spherical Search (Karami et al. 2014)

IBA Improved Bees Algorithm (Sharma et al. 2015)
ICA Imperialistic Competitive Algorithm (Kashani et al. 2016)
ILS Iterative Local Search (Aarts and Lenstra 1997)
ISA Interior Search Algorithm (Gandomi 2014)
ISOA Importance Search Optimization Algorithm (Sun 2010)
IWD Intelligent Water Drops (Shah-Hosseini 2008)
IWO Invasive Weed Optimization (Karimkashi and Kishk 2010)
JA Jaguar Algorithm (Chen et al. 2015)
JOA Joint Operations Algorithm (Sun et al. 2016)
KCA Key Cutting Algorithm (Qin 2009)
KHA Krill Herd Algorithm (Amudhavel et al. 2015)
LaF Leaders and followers (Gonzalez-Fernandez and Chen 2015)
LASDA Adaptive Spiral Dynamics Algorithm (Nasir et al. 2016)
LOA Lion Optimization Algorithm (Yazdani and Jolai 2016)
LS Local Search (Aarts and Lenstra 1997)
LSA Locust Swarm Algorithm (Cuevas et al. 2015)
LSO Lifecycle-based Swarm Optimization (Shen et al. 2014)
MBA Mine Blast Algorithm (Sadollah et al. 2013)
MBO Marriage in honey Bees Optimization (Bandieramonte et al. 2010)
MBOA Migrating Birds Optimization Algorithm (Duman et al. 2012)
MCSS Magnetic Charged System Search (Kaveh et al. 2013)
MFO Moth-Flame Optimization (Mirjalili 2015)
MHSA Mosquito Host-Seeking Algorithm (Feng et al. 2009)
Monkey Monkey Algorithm (Zhao and Tang 2008)
ODMA Open Source Development Model Algorithm (Hajipour et al. 2016)
Plant Plant (Caraveo et al. 2015)
PSO Particle Swarm Optimization (Eberhart and Kennedy 1995)
PVS Passing Vehicle Search (Savsani and Savsani 2016)
RA Raindrop Algorithm (Wei 2013)
RMO Radial Movement Optimization (Rahmani and Yusof 2014)
RO Ray Optimization (Kaveh and Khayatazad 2012)
RRA Runner-Root Algorithm (Merrikh-Bayat 2015)
RROA Raven Roosting Optimisation Algorithm (Brabazon et al. 2016)
SA Simulated Annealing (Kirkpatrick et al. 1983)
SAC Simple Adaptive Climbing (Viveros-Jiménez et al. 2014)
SCA Sine Cosine Algorithm (Mirjalili 2016)
SCE Shuffled Complex Evolution (Duan et al. 1993)
SDMSFA Smart Dispatching and Metaheuristic Swarm Flow Algorithm (Rodzin
2014)
SDS Stochastic Diffusion Search (al Rifaie et al. 2011)

123
Metaheuristic research: a comprehensive survey

Table 4 continued

Abbreviations Acronyms

SEOA Social Emotional Optimization Algorithm (Xu et al. 2010)

SFLA Shuffled Frog Leaping Algorithm (Eusuff et al. 2006)
SFS Stochastic Fractal Search (Salimi 2015)
SGA Search Group Algorithm (Gonçalves et al. 2015)
SSmell Shark Smell Optimization (Abedinia et al. 2014)
SLO Seven-spot Ladybird Optimization (Wang et al. 2013)
SMO Spider Monkey Optimization (Gupta and Deep 2016)
SNSO Social Network-based Swarm Optimization (Liang et al. 2015)
SOA Seeker Optimization Algorithm (Zhu et al. 2014)
SOS Symbiotic Organism Search (Abdullahi et al. 2016)
SS&PR Scatter Search and Path Relinking (Glover 1997)
SSO Simplified Swarm Optimization (Yeh et al. 2015)
SSOA Social Spider Optimization Algorithm (Cuevas et al. 2013)
TLBO Teaching-Learning-Based Optimization (Rao et al. 2011)
TS Tabu Search (Glover 1989)
VCS Virus Colony Search (Li et al. 2016)
VDSA Variable Depth Search Algorithm (Bouhmala 2015)
VNS Variable Neighborhood Search (Mladenovi and Hansen 1997)
VSA Vortex Search Algorithm (Doan and lmez 2015)
WCA Water Cycle Algorithm (Sadollah et al. 2015)
WDO Wind Driven Optimization (Bayraktar et al. 2010)
WEO Water Evaporation Optimization (Kaveh and Bakhshpoori 2016)
WFA Water Flow-like Algorithm (Yang and Wang 2007)
WPA Wolf Pack Algorithm (Wu and Zhang 2014)
WS Warping Search (Gonçalves et al. 2008)
WSA Weighted Superposition Attraction (Baykasoğlu and Akpinar 2015)
WWO Water Wave Optimization (Zheng 2015)

References
Aarts EHL, Lenstra JK (1997) Local search in combinatorial optimization. Princeton University Press, Prince-
ton
Abdechiri M, Meybodi MR, Bahrami H (2013) Gases brownian motion optimization: an algorithm for opti-
mization (GBMO). Appl Soft Comput 13(5):2932–2946
Abdullahi M, Ngadi A et al (2016) Symbiotic organism search optimization based task scheduling in cloud
computing environment. Future Gener Comput Syst 56:640–650
Abedinia O, Amjady N, Ghasemi A (2014) A new metaheuristic algorithm based on shark smell optimization.
Complexity 21:97–116
Abedinpourshotorban H, Shamsuddin SM, Beheshti Z, Jawawi DNA (2016) Electromagnetic field optimiza-
tion: a physics-inspired metaheuristic optimization algorithm. Swarm Evolut Comput 26:8–22
Al Rifaie MM, Bishop MJ, Blackwell T (2011) An investigation into the merger of stochastic diffusion
search and particle swarm optimisation. In: Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on genetic and
evolutionary computation, ACM pp 37–44
Alba E (2005) Parallel metaheuristics: a new class of algorithms, vol 47. Wiley, Hoboken

123
 K. Hussain et al.

Ali MZ, Awad NH, Suganthan PN, Duwairi RM, Reynolds RG (2016) A novel hybrid cultural algorithms
framework with trajectory-based search for global numerical optimization. Inf Sci 334:219–249
Amudhavel J, Kumarakrishnan S, Anantharaj B, Padmashree D, Harinee S, Kumar KP (2015) A novel
bio-inspired krill herd optimization in wireless ad-hoc network (WANET) for effective routing. In:
Proceedings of the 2015 international conference on advanced research in computer science engineering
& technology (ICARCSET 2015), ACM p 28
Angeline PJ, Saunders GM, Pollack JB (1994) An evolutionary algorithm that constructs recurrent neural
networks. IEEE Trans Neural Networks 5(1):54–65
Arasomwan AM, Adewumi AO (2014) An investigation into the performance of particle swarm optimization
with various chaotic maps. Math Prob Eng 2014:14
Askarzadeh A (2016) A novel metaheuristic method for solving constrained engineering optimization prob-
lems: crow search algorithm. Comput Struct 169:1–12
Atashpaz-Gargari E, Lucas C (2007) Imperialist competitive algorithm: an algorithm for optimization inspired
by imperialistic competition. In: 2007 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, IEEE, pp 4661–4667
Bae C, Yeh W-C, Wahid N, Chung YY, Liu Y (2012) A new simplified swarm optimization (SSO) using
exchange local search scheme. Int J Innov Comput Inf Control 8(6):4391–4406
Bandieramonte M, Di Stefano A, Morana G (2010) Grid jobs scheduling: the alienated ant algorithm solution.
Multiagent Grid Syst 6(3):225–243
Barresi KM (2014) Foraging agent swarm optimization with applications in data clustering. In: International
conference on swarm intelligence, Springer, pp 230–237
Baykasoğlu A, Akpinar Ş (2015) Weighted superposition attraction (WSA): a swarm intelligence algorithm
for optimization problems-part 2: constrained optimization. Appl Soft Comput 37:396–415
Bayraktar Z, Komurcu M, Werner DH (2010) Wind driven optimization (WDO): a novel nature-inspired
optimization algorithm and its application to electromagnetics. In: IEEE antennas and propagation society
international symposium (APSURSI), 2010, IEEE, pp 1–4
Beyer H-G, Schwefel H-P (2002) Evolution strategies–a comprehensive introduction. Nat Comput 1(1):3–52
Blum C, Roli A (2003) Metaheuristics in combinatorial optimization: overview and conceptual comparison.
ACM Comput Surv (CSUR) 35(3):268–308
Boussaïd I, Julien L, Siarry P (2013) A survey on optimization metaheuristics. Inf Sci 237:82–117
Brabazon A, Cui W, ONeill M (2016) The raven roosting optimisation algorithm. Soft Comput 20(2):525–545
Brereton P, Kitchenham BA, Budgen D, Turner M, Khalil M (2007) Lessons from applying the systematic
literature review process within the software engineering domain. J Syst Softw 80(4):571–583
Canayaz M, Karcı A (2015) Investigation of cricket behaviours as evolutionary computation for system design
optimization problems. Measurement 68:225–235
Caraveo C, Valdez F, Castillo O (2015) Bio-inspired optimization algorithm based on the self-defense mech-
anism in plants. In: Mexican international conference on artificial intelligence, Springer, pp 227–237
Chen CC, Tsai YC, Liu II, Lai CC, Yeh YT, Kuo SY, Chou YH (2015) A novel metaheuristic: Jaguar algorithm
with learning behavior. In: 2015 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (SMC),
IEEE, pp 1595–1600
Chen MR, Lu YZ, Yang G (2006) Population-based extremal optimization with adaptive lévy mutation for
constrained optimization. In: 2006 International conference on computational intelligence and security,
vol 1, IEEE pp 258–261
Chetty S, Adewumi AO (2015) A study on the enhanced best performance algorithm for the just-in-time
scheduling problem. Discret Dyn Nature Soc 2015:12
Civicioglu P (2013) Backtracking search optimization algorithm for numerical optimization problems. Appl
Math Comput 219(15):8121–8144
Crawford B, Soto R, Berríos N, Johnson F, Paredes F, Castro C, Norero E (2015) A binary cat swarm opti-
mization algorithm for the non-unicost set covering problem. Math Probl Eng, 2015
Črepinšek M, Liu S-H, Mernik M (2013) Exploration and exploitation in evolutionary algorithms: a survey.
ACM Comput Surv (CSUR) 45(3):35
Cuevas E, Cienfuegos M, Zaldívar D, Pérez-Cisneros M (2013) A swarm optimization algorithm inspired in
the behavior of the social-spider. Expert Syst Appl 40(16):6374–6384
Cuevas E, González A, Fausto F, Zaldívar D, Pérez-Cisneros M (2015) Multithreshold segmentation by using
an algorithm based on the behavior of locust swarms. Math Probl Eng 2015:25
Dash T, Sahu PK (2015) Gradient gravitational search: an efficient metaheuristic algorithm for global opti-
mization. J Comput Chem 36(14):1060–1068
Deb S, Fong S, Tian Z (2015) Elephant search algorithm for optimization problems. In: 2015 Tenth international
conference on digital information management (ICDIM), IEEE, pp 249–255

123
Metaheuristic research: a comprehensive survey

Djenouri Y, Drias H, Habbas Z, Mosteghanemi H (2012) Bees swarm optimization for web association rule
mining. In: 2012 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conferences on web intelligence and intelligent agent
technology (WI-IAT), vol 3, IEEE, pp 142–146
Doan B, lmez T (2015) A new metaheuristic for numerical function optimization: vortex search algorithm. Inf
Sci 293:125–145
Dorigo Marco (1992) Optimization, learning and natural algorithms. Ph. D. Thesis, Politecnico di Milano,
Italy
Dorigo M, Gambardella LM (1997) Ant colony system: a cooperative learning approach to the traveling
salesman problem. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 1(1):53–66
Dorigo M, Birattari M, Stutzle T (2006) Ant colony optimization. IEEE Comput Intell Mag 1(4):28–39
Duan QY, Gupta VK, Sorooshian S (1993) Shuffled complex evolution approach for effective and efficient
global minimization. J Optim Theory Appl 76(3):501–521
Duman E, Uysal M, Alkaya AF (2012) Migrating birds optimization: a new metaheuristic approach and its
performance on quadratic assignment problem. Inf Sci 217:65–77
Eberhart RC, Kennedy J (1995) A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. In: Proceedings of the sixth
international symposium on micro machine and human science, vol 1, pp 39–43. New York, NY
Erol OK, Eksin I (2006) A new optimization method: big bang-big crunch. Adv Eng Softw 37(2):106–111
Eusuff M, Lansey K, Pasha F (2006) Shuffled frog-leaping algorithm: a memetic meta-heuristic for discrete
optimization. Eng Optim 38(2):129–154
Faisal M, Mathkour H, Alsulaiman M (2016) AntStar: enhancing optimization problems by integrating an Ant
system and A* algorithm. Sci Prog 2016:2
Feng X, Lau FCM, Gao D (2009) A new bio-inspired approach to the traveling salesman problem. In: Inter-
national conference on complex sciences, Springer, pp 1310–1321
Feo TA, Resende MGC (1989) A probabilistic heuristic for a computationally difficult set covering problem.
Oper Res Lett 8(2):67–71
Filipović V, Kartelj A, Matić D (2013) An electromagnetism metaheuristic for solving the maximum between-
ness problem. Appl Soft Comput 13(2):1303–1313
Fogel GB, Corne DW (2002) Evolutionary computation in bioinformatics. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington
Gamerman D, Lopes HF (2006) Markov chain Monte Carlo: stochastic simulation for Bayesian inference.
CRC Press, Boca Raton
Gandomi AH (2014) Interior search algorithm (ISA): a novel approach for global optimization. ISA Trans
53(4):1168–1183
Gao-Ji Sun (2010) A new evolutionary algorithm for global numerical optimization. In: International confer-
ence on machine learning and cybernetics (ICMLC), 2010, vol 4, IEEE, pp 1807–1810
Geem ZW, Kim JH, Loganathan GV (2001) A new heuristic optimization algorithm: harmony search. Simu-
lation 76(2):60–68
Glover F (1997) A template for scatter search and path relinking. In: European conference on artificial evolution,
Springer, p 1–51
Glover F (1989) Tabu search–part I. ORSA J Comput 1(3):190–206
Gonçalves R, Goldbarg MC, Goldbarg EF, Delgado MR (2008) Warping search: a new metaheuristic applied to
the protein structure prediction. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary
computation, ACM, pp 349–350
Gonçalves MS, Lopez RH, Miguel LFF (2015) Search group algorithm: a new metaheuristic method for the
optimization of truss structures. Comput Struct 153:165–184
Gonzalez-Fernandez Y, Chen S (2015) Leaders and followers–a new metaheuristic to avoid the bias of accu-
mulated information. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC), 2015, IEEE, pp 776–783
Greenberg HJ (2004) Mathematical programming glossary. Greenberg, New York
Gupta K, Deep K (2016) Tournament selection based probability scheme in spider monkey optimization
algorithm. In: Harmony search algorithm, Springer, pp 239–250
Gutowski M (2001) Lévy flights as an underlying mechanism for global optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint
arXiv:math-ph/0106003v1
Hajipour H, Khormuji HB, Rostami H (2016) ODMA: a novel swarm-evolutionary metaheuristic optimizer
inspired by open source development model and communities. Soft Comput 20(2):727–747
Haldar V, Chakraborty N (2017) A novel evolutionary technique based on electrolocation principle of elephant
nose fish and shark: fish electrolocation optimization. Soft Comput 21(14):3827–3848
Hasançebi O, Azad SK (2015) Adaptive dimensional search: a new metaheuristic algorithm for discrete truss
sizing optimization. Comput Struct 154:1–16
He S, Wu QH, Saunders JR (2006) A novel group search optimizer inspired by animal behavioural ecology.
In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, 2006. CEC 2006, IEEE, pp 1272–1278
Holland JH (1992) Genetic algorithms. Sci Am 267(1):66–72

123
 K. Hussain et al.

Huang Z, Chen Y (2015) Log-linear model based behavior selection method for artificial fish swarm algorithm.
Comput Intell Neurosci 2015:10
Iordache S (2010) Consultant-guided search: a new metaheuristic for combinatorial optimization problems. In:
Proceedings of the 12th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, ACM, pp 225–232
Jahuira CAR (2002) Hybrid genetic algorithm with exact techniques applied to TSP. In: Second international
workshop on intelligent systems design and application, Dynamic Publishers, Inc, pp 119–124
James JQ, Li VOK (2015) A social spider algorithm for global optimization. Appl Soft Comput 30:614–627
Jin Y (2011) Surrogate-assisted evolutionary computation: recent advances and future challenges. Swarm
Evolut Comput 1(2):61–70
Jourdan L, Basseur M, Talbi E-G (2009) Hybridizing exact methods and metaheuristics: a taxonomy. Eur J
Oper Res 199(3):620–629
Karaboga D, Akay B (2009) A comparative study of artificial bee colony algorithm. Appl Math Comput
214(1):108–132
Karaboga D, An idea based on honey bee swarm for numerical optimization. Report, technical report-tr06,
Erciyes University, Engineering Faculty, Computer Engineering Department, 2005
Karami H, Sanjari MJ, Gharehpetian GB (2014) Hyper-spherical search (HSS) algorithm: a novel meta-
heuristic algorithm to optimize nonlinear functions. Neural Comput Appl 25(6):1455–1465
Karimkashi S, Kishk AA (2010) Invasive weed optimization and its features in electromagnetics. IEEE Trans
Antennas Propag 58(4):1269–1278
Kashani AR, Gandomi AH, Mousavi M (2016) Imperialistic competitive algorithm: a metaheuristic algorithm
for locating the critical slip surface in 2-dimensional soil slopes. Geosci Front 7(1):83–89
Kaveh A, Bakhshpoori T (2016) A new metaheuristic for continuous structural optimization: water evaporation
optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 54(1):23–43
Kaveh A, Farhoudi N (2016) Dolphin monitoring for enhancing metaheuristic algorithms: layout optimization
of braced frames. Comput Struct 165:1–9
Kaveh A, Khayatazad M (2012) A new meta-heuristic method: ray optimization. Comput Struct 112:283–294
Kaveh A, Mahdavi VR (2014) Colliding bodies optimization: a novel meta-heuristic method. Comput Struct
139:18–27
Kaveh A, Talatahari S (2010) A novel heuristic optimization method: charged system search. Acta Mech
213(3):267–289
Kaveh A, Motie MA, Share MM (2013) Magnetic charged system search: a new meta-heuristic algorithm for
optimization. Acta Mech 224(1):85–107
Keele S (2007) Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. In: Technical
report, Ver. 2.3 EBSE Technical Report. EBSE. sn
Khabzaoui M, Dhaenens C, Talbi E-G (2008) Combining evolutionary algorithms and exact approaches for
multi-objective knowledge discovery. RAIRO-Oper Res 42(1):69–83
Khajehzadeh M, Taha MR, Elshafie AHKAN, Eslami M (2011) A survey on meta-heuristic global optimization
algorithms. Res J Appl Sci Eng Technol 3(6):569–578
Kirkpatrick SC, Gelatt D, Vecchi MP et al (1983) Optimization by simulated annealing. Science
220(4598):671–680
Kiruthiga G, Krishnapriya S, Karpagambigai V, Pazhaniraja N, Paul P Victer (2015) A novel bio-inspired
algorithm based on the foraging behaviour of the bottlenose dolphin. In: 2015 International conference
on computation of power, energy information and commuincation (ICCPEIC), IEEE, pp 0209–0224
Koziel S, Yang X-S (2011) Computational optimization, methods and algorithms, vol 356. Springer, New York
Kuo RJ, Zulvia FE (2015) The gradient evolution algorithm: a new metaheuristic. Inf Sci 316:246–265
Li SX, Wang JS (2015) Dynamic modeling of steam condenser and design of pi controller based on grey wolf
optimizer. Math Probl Eng 2015:9
Li Z-Y, Li Z, Nguyen TT, Chen SM (2015) Orthogonal chemical reaction optimization algorithm for global
numerical optimization problems. Expert Syst Appl 42(6):3242–3252
Li MD, Zhao H, Weng XW, Han T (2016) A novel nature-inspired algorithm for optimization: virus colony
search. Adv Eng Softw 92:65–88
Lianbo M, Kunyuan H, Yunlong Z, Hanning C, Maowei H (2014) A novel plant root foraging algorithm for
image segmentation problems. Math Probl Eng 2014:16
Liang X, Li W, Liu PP, Zhang Y, Agbo AA (2015) Social network-based swarm optimization algorithm.
In: IEEE 12th international conference on networking, sensing and control (ICNSC), 2015, IEEE, pp
360–365
Li K, Tian H (2015) A de-based scatter search for global optimization problems. Discret Dyn Nat Soc,
2015:303125
Liu Y, Tian P (2015) A multi-start central force optimization for global optimization. Appl Soft Comput
27:92–98

123
Metaheuristic research: a comprehensive survey

Li W, Wang L, Yao Q, Jiang Q, Yu L, Wang B, Hei X (2015) Cloud particles differential evolution algorithm:
a novel optimization method for global numerical optimization. Math Probl Eng 2015:3242–3252
Mahdavi S, Shiri ME, Rahnamayan S (2015) Metaheuristics in large-scale global continues optimization: a
survey. Inf Sci 295:407–428
Mann PS, Singh S (2017) Improved metaheuristic based energy-efficient clustering protocol for wireless sensor
networks. Eng Appl Artif Intell 57:142–152
Marinakis Y, Marinaki M (2014) A bumble bees mating optimization algorithm for the open vehicle routing
problem. Swarm Evolut Comput 15:80–94
Marinakis Y, Marinaki M (2011) A honey bees mating optimization algorithm for the open vehicle routing
problem. In: Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, ACM,
pp 101–108
Marinakis Y, Marinaki M, Matsatsinis N (2009) A hybrid bumble bees mating optimization-GRASP algorithm
for clustering. In: International conference on hybrid artificial intelligence systems, Springer, pp 549–556
Meignan D, Koukam A, Crput J-C (2010) Coalition-based metaheuristic: a self-adaptive metaheuristic using
reinforcement learning and mimetism. J Heuristics 16(6):859–879
Meng X, Liu Y, Gao X, Zhang H (2014) A new bio-inspired algorithm: chicken swarm optimization. In:
International conference in swarm intelligence, Springer, pp 86–94
Merrikh-Bayat F (2015) The runner-root algorithm: a metaheuristic for solving unimodal and multimodal
optimization problems inspired by runners and roots of plants in nature. Appl Soft Comput 33:292–303
Mirjalili S (2015) Moth-flame optimization algorithm: a novel nature-inspired heuristic paradigm. Knowl-
Based Syst 89:228–249
Mirjalili S (2016) SCA: a sine cosine algorithm for solving optimization problems. Knowl-Based Syst 96:120–
133
Mladenovi N, Hansen P (1997) Variable neighborhood search. Comput Oper Res 24(11):1097–1100
Munoz MA, López JA, Caicedo E (2009) An artificial beehive algorithm for continuous optimization. Int J
Intell Syst 24(11):1080–1093
Muthiah-Nakarajan V, Noel MM (2016) Galactic swarm optimization: a new global optimization metaheuristic
inspired by galactic motion. Appl Soft Comput 38:771–787
Narayanan A, Moore M (1996) Quantum-inspired genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of IEEE International
conference on evolutionary computation, 1996, IEEE, pp 61–66
Nasir ANK, Raja Ismail RMT, Tokhi MO (2016) Adaptive spiral dynamics metaheuristic algorithm for global
optimisation with application to modelling of a flexible system. Appl Math Model 40(9):5442–5461
Niu B, Wang H (2012) Bacterial colony optimization. Discret Dyn Nature Soc 2012:28
Nourddine B (2015) A variable depth search algorithm for binary constraint satisfaction problems. Math Probl
Eng, 2015
Odili JB, Kahar MNM (2016) Solving the traveling salesman’s problem using the african buffalo optimization.
Comput Intell Neurosci 2016:3
Osaba E, Diaz F, Carballedo R, Onieva E, Perallos A (2014) Focusing on the golden ball metaheuristic: an
extended study on a wider set of problems. Sci World J 2014:1–17
Osaba E, Diaz F, Onieva E (2013) A novel meta-heuristic based on soccer concepts to solve routing problems.
In: Proceedings of the 15th annual conference companion on genetic and evolutionary computation,
ACM, pp 1743–1744
Pan W-T (2012) A new fruit fly optimization algorithm: taking the financial distress model as an example.
Knowl-Based Syst 26:69–74
Petersen K, Feldt R, Mujtaba S, Mattsson M (2008) Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. In:
12th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering, vol 17
Pham DT, Huynh TTB (2015) An effective combination of genetic algorithms and the variable neighborhood
search for solving travelling salesman problem. In: 2015 Conference on technologies and applications
of artificial intelligence (TAAI), IEEE, pp 142–149
Puchinger J, Raidl GR (2005) Combining metaheuristics and exact algorithms in combinatorial optimization: a
survey and classification. In: International work-conference on the interplay between natural and artificial
computation, Springer, pp 41–53
Qin J (2009) A new optimization algorithm and its application key cutting algorithm. In: 2009 IEEE interna-
tional conference on grey systems and intelligent services (GSIS 2009), IEEE, pp 1537–1541
Rahmani R, Yusof R (2014) A new simple, fast and efficient algorithm for global optimization over continuous
search-space problems: radial movement optimization. Appl Math Comput 248:287–300
Rao RV, Savsani VJ, Vakharia DP (2011) Teaching learning-based optimization: a novel method for constrained
mechanical design optimization problems. Comput Aided Des 43(3):303–315
Rashedi E, Nezamabadi-Pour H, Saryazdi S (2009) GSA: a gravitational search algorithm. Inf Sci
179(13):2232–2248

123
 K. Hussain et al.

Rechenberg I (1994) Evolutionsstrategie: Optimierung technischer systeme nach prinzipien der biologischen
evolution. frommann-holzbog, stuttgart, 1973. Step-size adaptation based on non-local use of selection
information. In: Parallel problem solving from nature (PPSN3)
Rodzin SI (2014) Smart dispatching and metaheuristic swarm flow algorithm. J Comput Syst Sci Int 53(1):109–
115
Sadollah A, Bahreininejad A, Eskandar H, Hamdi M (2013) Mine blast algorithm: a new population based
algorithm for solving constrained engineering optimization problems. Appl Soft Comput 13(5):2592–
2612
Sadollah A, Eskandar H, Kim JH (2015) Water cycle algorithm for solving constrained multi-objective opti-
mization problems. Appl Soft Comput 27:279–298
Sahli Z, Hamouda A, Bekrar A, Trentesaux D (2014) Hybrid PSO-tabu search for the optimal reactive power
dispatch problem. In: IECON 2014-40th annual conference of the IEEE industrial electronics society,
IEEE, pp 3536–3542
Salcedo-Sanz S, Del Ser J, Landa-Torres I, Gil-Lpez S, Portilla-Figueras JA (2014) The coral reefs optimization
algorithm: a novel metaheuristic for efficiently solving optimization problems. Sci World J, 2014
Salimi H (2015) Stochastic fractal search: a powerful metaheuristic algorithm. Knowl-Based Syst 75:1–18
Savsani P, Savsani V (2016) Passing vehicle search (PVS): A novel metaheuristic algorithm. Appl Math Model
40(5):3951–3978
Schwefel H-P (1977) Numerische optimierung von computer-modellen mittels der evolutionsstrategie, vol 1.
Birkhuser, Basel
Shah-Hosseini H (2008) Intelligent water drops algorithm: a new optimization method for solving the multiple
knapsack problem. Int J Intell Comput Cybern 1(2):193–212
Sharma MK, Phonrattanasak P, Leeprechanon N (2015) Improved bees algorithm for dynamic economic
dispatch considering prohibited operating zones. In: IEEE innovative smart grid technologies-Asia (ISGT
ASIA), 2015, IEEE, pp 1–6
Shen H, Zhu Y, Liang X (2014) Lifecycle-based swarm optimization method for numerical optimization.
Discret Dyn Nat Soc 2014:11
Shi Y (2011) Brain storm optimization algorithm. In: International conference in swarm intelligence, Springer,
pp 303–309
Simon D (2008) Biogeography-based optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 12(6):702–713
Spitzer F (2013) Principles of random walk, vol 34. Springer Science & Business Media, New York
Srensen K (2015) Metaheuristicsthe metaphor exposed. Int Trans Oper Res 22(1):3–18
Srensen K, Maya Duque P, Vanovermeire C, Castro M (2012) Metaheuristics for the multimodal optimization
of hazmat transports. Secur Asp Uni Multimodal Hazmat Transp Syst, 163–181
Srensen K, Sevaux M, Glover F (2017) A history of metaheuristics. In: ORBEL29-29th Belgian conference
on operations research
Storn R, Price K (1997) Differential evolutiona simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over
continuous spaces. J Glob Optim 11(4):341–359
Stützle T (1998) Local search algorithms for combinatorial problems. Darmstadt University of Technology
Ph.D. Thesis, 20
Sulaiman MH, Ibrahim H, Daniyal H, Mohamed MR (2014) A new swarm intelligence approach for optimal
chiller loading for energy conservation. Proced-Soc Behav Sci 129:483–488
Sun G, Zhao R, Lan Y (2016) Joint operations algorithm for large-scale global optimization. Appl Soft Comput
38:1025–1039
Sur C, Shukla A (2013) New bio-inspired meta-heuristics-green herons optimization algorithm-for opti-
mization of travelling salesman problem and road network. In: International conference on swarm,
evolutionary, and memetic computing, Springer, pp 168–179
Tan TG, Teo J, Chin KO (2013) Single-versus multiobjective optimization for evolution of neural controllers
in Ms. Pac-man. Int J Comput Games Technol 2013:1–7
Tan Y, Zhu Y (2010) Fireworks algorithm for optimization. In: International conference in swarm intelligence,
Springer, pp 355–364
Uddin J, Ghazali R, Deris MM, Naseem R, Shah H (2016) A survey on bug prioritization. Artif Intell Rev
47:145–180
Uymaz SA, Tezel G, Yel E (2015) Artificial algae algorithm (AAA) for nonlinear global optimization. Appl
Soft Comput 31:153–171
Viveros Jiménez F, Mezura Montes E, Gelbukh A (2009) Adaptive evolution: an efficient heuristic for global
optimization. In: Proceedings of the 11th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation,
ACM, pp 1827–1828
Viveros-Jiménez F, León-Borges JA, Cruz-Cortés N (2014) An adaptive single-point algorithm for global
numerical optimization. Expert Syst Appl 41(3):877–885

123
Metaheuristic research: a comprehensive survey

Wang Y (2010) A sociopsychological perspective on collective intelligence in metaheuristic computing. Int J

Appl Metaheuristic Comput 1(1):110–128
Wang H, Yao LG, Hua ZZ (2008) Optimization of sheet metal forming processes by adaptive response surface
based on intelligent sampling method. J Mater Process Technol 197(1):77–88
Wang R, Zhou Y (2014) Flower pollination algorithm with dimension by dimension improvement. Math Probl
Eng 2014:9
Wang P, Zhu Z, Huang S (2013) Seven-spot ladybird optimization: a novel and efficient metaheuristic algorithm
for numerical optimization. Sci World J 2013:11
Wei Z (2013) A raindrop algorithm for searching the global optimal solution in non-linear programming. arXiv
preprint arXiv:1306.2043v1
Wu HS, Zhang FM (2014) Wolf pack algorithm for unconstrained global optimization. Math Probl Eng, 2014
Wu G (2016) Across neighborhood search for numerical optimization. Inf Sci 329:597–618
Xu Y, Cui Z, Zeng J (2010) Social emotional optimization algorithm for nonlinear constrained optimization
problems. In: SEMCCO, Springer, pp 583–590
Yang XS, Deb S (2009) Cuckoo search via lévy flights. In: World congress on nature & biologically inspired
computing, 2009. NaBIC 2009, IEEE, pp 210–214
Yang XS, Deb S, Hanne T, He X (2015) Attraction and diffusion in nature-inspired optimization algorithms.
Neural Comput Appl, 1–8
Yang XS (2008) Nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithms. Firefly Algorithm 20:79–90
Yang X-S (2010) A new metaheuristic bat-inspired algorithm. Springer, New York, pp 65–74
Yang XS (2011) Metaheuristic optimization: algorithm analysis and open problems. In: International sympo-
sium on experimental algorithms, Springer, pp 21–32
Yang XS (2012) Nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithms: success and new challenges. J Comput Eng Inf
Technol 1:1–3
Yang X-S, Deb S (2014) Cuckoo search: recent advances and applications. Neural Comput Appl 24(1):169–174
Yang F-C, Wang Y-P (2007) Water flow-like algorithm for object grouping problems. J Chin Inst Ind Eng
24(6):475–488
Yao X, Liu Y, Lin G (1999) Evolutionary programming made faster. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 3(2):82–102
Yazdani M, Jolai F (2016) Lion optimization algorithm (LOA): a nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithm. J
Comput Des Eng 3(1):24–36
Yeh WC, Chung VYY, Jiang YZ, He X (2015) Solving reliability redundancy allocation problems with
orthogonal simplified swarm optimization. In: International joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN),
2015, IEEE, pp 1–7
Yin P-Y, Glover F, Laguna M, Zhu J-X (2010) Cyber swarm algorithms-improving particle swarm optimization
using adaptive memory strategies. Eur J Oper Res 201(2):377–389
Yu X, Gen M (2010) Introduction to evolutionary algorithms. Springer Science & Business Media, New York
Zelinka I (2015) A survey on evolutionary algorithms dynamics and its complexitymutual relations, past,
present and future. Swarm Evolut Comput 25:2–14
Zhang G (2011) Quantum-inspired evolutionary algorithms: a survey and empirical study. J Heuristics
17(3):303–351
Zhang M-X, Zhang B, Qian N (2017) University course timetabling using a new ecogeography-based opti-
mization algorithm. Nat Comput 16(1):61–74
Zhao R-Q, Tang W-S (2008) Monkey algorithm for global numerical optimization. J Uncertain Syst 2(3):165–
176
Zhao W, Wang L (2016) An effective bacterial foraging optimizer for global optimization. Inf Sci 329:719–735
Zheng Y-J (2015) Water wave optimization: a new nature-inspired metaheuristic. Comput Oper Res 55:1–11
Zhou W, Chow TWS, Cheng S, Shi Y (2013) Contour gradient optimization. Int J Swarm Intell Res (IJSIR)
4(2):1–28
Zhu Y, Dai C, Chen W (2014) Seeker optimization algorithm for several practical applications. Int J Comput
Intell Syst 7(2):353–359

123