mathematics

Article
Orthogonal Learning Rosenbrock’s Direct Rotation with the
Gazelle Optimization Algorithm for Global Optimization
Laith Abualigah 1, * , Ali Diabat 2,3 and Raed Abu Zitar 4

1 Faculty of Information Technology, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman 19328, Jordan

2 Division of Engineering, New York University Abu Dhabi, Saadiyat Island,
Abu Dhabi 129188, United Arab Emirates
3 Department of Civil and Urban Engineering, Tandon School of Engineering, New York University,
Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA
4 Sorbonne Center of Artificial Intelligence, Sorbonne University-Abu Dhabi,
Abu Dhabi 38044, United Arab Emirates
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: An efficient optimization method is needed to address complicated problems and find
optimal solutions. The gazelle optimization algorithm (GOA) is a global stochastic optimizer that
is straightforward to comprehend and has powerful search capabilities. Nevertheless, the GOA
is unsuitable for addressing multimodal, hybrid functions, and data mining problems. Therefore,
the current paper proposes the orthogonal learning (OL) method with Rosenbrock’s direct rotation
strategy to improve the GOA and sustain the solution variety (IGOA). We performed comprehensive
experiments based on various functions, including 23 classical and IEEE CEC2017 problems. More-
over, eight data clustering problems taken from the UCI repository were tested to verify the proposed
method’s performance further. The IGOA was compared with several other proposed meta-heuristic
algorithms. Moreover, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test further assessed the experimental results to
conduct more systematic data analyses. The IGOA surpassed other comparative optimizers in terms
Citation: Abualigah, L.; Diabat, A.; of convergence speed and precision. The empirical results show that the proposed IGOA achieved
Zitar, R.A. Orthogonal Learning better outcomes than the basic GOA and other state-of-the-art methods and performed better in terms
Rosenbrock’s Direct Rotation with of solution quality.
the Gazelle Optimization Algorithm
for Global Optimization. Mathematics Keywords: orthogonal learning (OL); Rosenbrock’s direct rotational (RDR); gazelle optimization
2022, 10, 4509. https://doi.org/ algorithm (GOA); CEC2017; data clustering; optimization problems
10.3390/math10234509

Academic Editor: Ioannis G. Tsoulos MSC: 68W50

Received: 16 October 2022

Accepted: 14 November 2022
Published: 29 November 2022 1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral In recent years, numerous disciplines, including data science, systems engineering,
with regard to jurisdictional claims in mathematical optimization, and their applications, have focused on real-world optimization
published maps and institutional affil- challenges [1,2]. Traditional and meta-heuristic methods are the two main approaches for
iations. handling these issues. Newton and gradient descent are two simple examples of the first
category of techniques [3]. The time-consuming nature of these procedures is, however,
a disadvantage. Additionally, there is only one solution for each run. The effectiveness of
these methods depends on the issues being addressed, as well as the restrictions, objective
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
functions, search methods, and variables [4,5].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Numerous optimization techniques have been created, and optimization issues are
This article is an open access article
frequently encountered in engineering and scientific study disciplines [6]. The search space
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
generation and local optimal stagnation are two fundamental problems with current opti-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
mization paradigms [7]. Consequently, stochastic optimization techniques have received
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
much attention in recent years. Because stochastic optimization methods merely modify
4.0/). the inputs, monitor the outputs of a given system for objective outcomes, and consider the

Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10234509 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics

Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 2 of 42

optimization problem a “black box”, they can skip deriving the computational formula [8].
Additionally, stochastic optimization techniques can randomly complete optimization
problems, giving them an inherent advantage over traditional optimization algorithms in
their capacity for optimal local avoidance [9]. Stochastic optimization algorithms can be
categorized into population-based and individual-based techniques depending on how
many solutions are produced at each iteration of the entire process. Population-based
methods have many random solutions and promote them throughout the optimization
procedure [10,11]. In contrast, individual-based methods only produce one candidate
solution at a time.
Nature-inspired stochastic techniques have received much interest recently [12–14].
Such optimization frequently imitates the social or individual behavior of a population of
animals or other natural occurrences. Such algorithms begin the optimization process by
generating several random solutions, which they then enhance as potential answers to a
specific issue [15]. Stochastic optimization algorithms are used in various sectors because
they outperform mathematical optimization methods. Despite the enormous number
of suggested ways in the optimization area, it is crucial to understand why we require
different optimization techniques. The no free lunch (NFL) theorem can be used to justify
this problem [16]. It logically supports the idea that one method cannot provide an efficient
solution for resolving any optimization issue. In other words, it cannot be guaranteed
that an algorithm’s success in addressing a specific set of issues would enable it to solve
all optimization problems of all types and natures. This theorem allows researchers to
suggest brand-new optimization strategies or enhance the existing algorithms to solve
various issues.
As mentioned above, hard optimization problems need powerful search methods to
find the optimal solutions for different problems. Thus, the basic method faces several
problems during the search process, which are premature convergence, a lack of balance
between the search methods, and low convergence behavior. The gazelle optimization
algorithm (GOA) is a global stochastic optimizer that is straightforward and has a powerful
search capability. Nevertheless, the GOA requires a deep investigation to improve its search
abilities and address various multimodal–hybrid functions and data mining problems ef-
ficiently. Therefore, this paper proposes a new hybrid method, called (IGOA), based on
using the orthogonal learning (OL) method with Rosenbrock’s direct rotational strategy.
This modification aims to improve the basic GOA performance and sustain solution vari-
eties. We performed comprehensive experiments based on various functions, including
23 classical and IEEE CEC2017 problems. Moreover, eight data clustering problems taken
from the UCI repository were tested to further verify the proposed method’s performance.
The IGOA was compared with several other proposed meta-heuristic algorithms. Moreover,
the Wilcoxon signed-rank test further assessed the experimental results to conduct more
systematic data analyses. The IGOA surpassed other comparative optimizers in terms of
convergence speed and precision. The empirical results show that the proposed IGOA
achieved better results compared to the basic GOA and other state-of-the-art methods,
and it obtained higher performance in terms of solution quality.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, the related works
are presented. Section 3 presents the main procedure of the used original GOA. Section 4
presents the proposed IGOA method. Section 5 presents the experiments and the obtained
results by the comparative methods. The results are presented in Section 6. Finally,
the conclusion and potential future research directions are presented in Section 7.

2. Related Works
In this section, the related search methods that were used to solve various problems
with their modifications are presented.
A popular technique inspired by nature, called moth–flame optimization (MFO), is
straightforward. However, MFO may struggle with convergence or tend to slip into lo-
cal optima for some complicated optimization tasks, particularly high-dimensional and
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 3 of 42

multimodal issues. The integration of MFO with the Gaussian mutation (GM), the Cauchy
mutation (CM), the Lévy mutation (LM), or the combination of GM, CM, and LM, is pre-
sented in [17] to address these constraints. To specifically enhance neighborhood-informed
capabilities, GM is added to the fundamental MFO. On an extensive collection of 23 bench-
mark issues and 30 CEC2017 benchmark tasks, the most acceptable variation of MFO
was evaluated to 15 cutting-edge methods and 4 well-known sophisticated optimization
techniques. The extensive experiments show that there are three ways to considerably
increase the basic MFO exploration and exploitation capabilities.
To direct the swarm, further enhance the balance between the integrated exploratory
and neighborhood-informed capacities of the traditional process, and explore the core (in
an attempt to search the abilities of the whale optimization algorithm (WOA) in dealing
with optimal control tasks), two novel and appropriate strategies (made up of Lévy flight
and chaotic local search) are instantaneously presented into the WOA [18]. Unimodal, mul-
timodal, and fixed-dimension multimodal problems are in the benchmark tasks. The study
and practical findings show that the suggested method can surpass its rivals in terms of
convergence speed and rate. The proposed approach may be a powerful and valuable
supplemental tool for more complicated optimization problems.
Implementing effective software products is becoming increasingly difficult due to the
high-performance computing (HPC) industry’s rapidly changing hardware environment
and growing specialization. Software abstraction is one approach to overcoming these
difficulties. A parallel algorithm paradigm is proposed that enables both optimum map-
pings to be various and complex architectures with global control of their synchronization
and parallelization [19]. The model that is provided distinguishes between an algorithm’s
structure and its functional execution. It preserves them in an abstract pattern tree. It uses a
hierarchical breakdown of parallel process models while building blocks for computational
frameworks (APT). Based on the APT, a data-centric flow graph is created that serves as an
intermediary description for complex and automatic structural changes. Three example
algorithms are used to illustrate the usability of this paradigm, which results in runtime
speedups between 1.83 and 2.45 on a typical mixed CPU/GPU system.
One of the recently developed algorithms, the salp swarm algorithm (SSA), is based
on the simulated behavior of salps. However, it faces local optima stagnation and slow con-
vergence (similar to most meta-heuristic methods). These issues were recently satisfactorily
resolved using chaos theory. A brand-new hybrid approach built on SSA and the chaos
theory was put forth in this work [20]. A total of 20 benchmark datasets and 14 benchmark
unimodal and multimodal optimization tasks were used to test the proposed chaotic salp
swarm algorithm (CSSA). Ten distinct chaotic maps were used to increase the convergence
rate and ensuing precision. The suggested CSSA is an algorithm with promise, according
to the simulation findings. The outcomes also demonstrate CSSA’s capacity to identify
an ideal feature subset that maximizes classification performance while using the fewest
possible features. Additionally, the results show that the chaotic logistic map is the best of
the ten maps utilized and may significantly improve the effectiveness of the original SSA.
The sine–cosine algorithm, newly created to handle global optimization issues, is
based on the properties of the sine and cosine trigonometric functions. The sine–cosine
technique is modified in this study [21], improving the solution’s ability to be exploited
while lowering the diversity overflow in traditional SCA search equations. ISCA is the
suggested algorithm’s name. Its standout feature is the presented algorithm’s fusion of
crossover skills with individual optimal states of unique solutions and a combination of
self-learning and global search methods. A traditional collection of common benchmark
issues, the IEEE CEC2014 benchmark test, and a more recent group of benchmark functions,
the IEEE CEC2017 benchmark exam, have been used to assess these skills in ISCA. ISCA
has used several performance criteria to guarantee the robustness and effectiveness of
the method. In the study, five well-known engineering optimization problems were also
solved using the suggested technique, ISCA. The proposed approach is also employed for
multilayer thresholding in picture segmentation toward the study’s conclusion.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 4 of 42

The WOA, a novel and competitive population-based optimization technique, beats

specific previous biologically inspired algorithms in terms of ease of use and effective-
ness [22]. However, for massive global optimization (LSGO) issues, WOA will become
entangled in local optima and lose accuracy. To solve LSGO difficulties, a modified version
of the whale optimization algorithm (MWOA) is suggested. A nonlinear dynamic method
based on a differential operator is provided to update the controller parameters to equi-
librium regarding the exploration and exploitation capacities. The algorithm is forced to
leave local optima by employing a Lévy flight technique. Additionally, the population’s
leader is subjected to a quadratic extrapolation approach, which increases the precision of
the solution and the effectiveness of local exploitation. A total of 25 well-known bench-
mark problems varying from 100 to 1000 were used to evaluate MWOA. The experimental
findings show that MWOA on LSGO perform better than other cutting-edge optimization
methods in terms of solution correctness, fast convergence, and reliability.

3. Gazelle Optimization Algorithm: Procedure and Presentation

This section introduces the gazelle optimization algorithm (GOA) and formulates the
suggested procedures for optimization.
The family of the genus Gazella includes the gazelles. The drylands throughout most
of Asia, including China, the Arabian Peninsula, and a portion of the Sahara Desert in
northern Africa, are home to gazelles. Additionally, they may be found in eastern Africa and
the sub-Saharan Sahel, which stretches from Tanzania to the Horn of Africa. The majority
of predators frequently hunt on gazelles. There are about 19 different species of gazelles,
ranging in size from the little Thomson’s and Speke’s gazelle to the enormous Dama gazelle.
The gazelle’s hearing, sight, and smell are keen, and they move quickly. These evolutionary
traits enable them to flee from predators, making up for their chronic weaknesses. In nature,
gazelles and their peculiar characteristics may be seen [23].

3.1. Initialization
The GOA is a population-based optimization technique that employs gazelles (X) with
randomly initialized search parameters. According to Equation (1), the search agents are
represented by an n-by-d matrix of the potential solution. The GOA leverages the issue’s
upper bound (UB) and lower limit (LB) constraints to determine the possible values for the
population matrix stochastically.
 
X1,1 X1,2 ··· X1,j X1,1−d X1,d
 X
 2,1 X2,2 ··· X2,j X2,1−d X2,d 
 .. 
 ··· ··· ··· . ··· ··· 
 
X= . ..  (1)
 .
 . ··· ··· Xi,j . ··· 

 Xn−1,1 Xn−1,2 · · · Xn−1,j ···
 
Xn−1,d 
Xn,1 Xn,2 ··· ··· Xn,d−1 Xn,d

where X is the matrix of the solution locations, each location is stochastically yielded by
Equation (2), Xi,j is the jth randomly induced location of the ith solution, n denotes the
number of gazelles, and d is the specified search space.

Xi,j = rand ∗ (UBj − LBj ) + LBj (2)

Each iteration has a candidate location for each Xi,j , where rand is a random numeral,
UBj − LBj are the upper and lower bounds of the specified search space, respectively.
The best-obtained solution is appointed as a top gazelle to create an elite matrix (n × d)
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 5 of 42

as given in Equation (3). This matrix is employed to explore and discover the gazelle’s
next iteration.
 0 0 0 0 0

X1,1 X1,2 ··· X1,j X1,1 −d X1,d
 0 0 0 0 0
 X2,1 X2,2 ··· X2,j X2,1 −d X2,d


..
 
 
 ··· ··· ··· . ··· ··· 
Elite = 
 .. ..
 (3)
0

 .
 · · · · · · X i,j . · · · 

 0 0 0
 Xn−1,1 Xn−1,2 · · · Xn−1,j ··· Xn0 −1,d 

0
Xn,1 0
Xn,2 ··· ··· 0
Xn,d 0
Xn,d
−1

where Xi,j0 denotes the locations of the top gazelle. The predator and gazelles are indeed

regarded as search agents by the GOA. Since the gazelles are already running in unison for
refuge by the time a predator is observed stalking them, the predator would have already
searched the area when the gazelles flee. If the superior gazelle replaces the top gazelle, the
elite will change after each iteration.

3.2. The Brownian Motion

A seemingly random movement when the displacement conforms to a standard
(Gaussian) probability distribution function with a median and variance of µ = 0 and σ2 = 1,
respectively. Equation (4) defines the normal Brownian motion at location M [23].

( x − µ )2 x2
   
1 1
f B ( x; µ, σ ) = p exp − = exp − (4)
2σ2
p
2µσ2 2µ 2

3.3. The Lévy Flight

The Lévy distribution from Equation (5) is used by the Lévy flight to conduct a random
walk [24].
1− α
L( X j ) = X j (5)
where X j indicates the flight space, and α = (1, 2) indicates the power law exponent.
Equation (6) indicates the Lévy regular operation [25].
Z 0
1
f L ( x; α, ν) = exp(−νqα )cos(qx )δq (6)
n ∞

This work utilized an algorithm that yields a stable Lévy motion. The algorithm em-
ployed within the range of 0.3–1.99, represented in Equation (7), where α is the distribution
index that handles the motion processes, and ν denotes the scale unit.
x
Levy(α) = 0.05 ∗ 1
(7)
|y| α

where α, x, and y are described as follows:

x = Normal (0, σx2 ) (8)

y = Normal (0, σx2 ) (9)

" #
Γ(1 − α)sin( πα 2 )
σx = α −1
(10)
Γ( 1+2 α )α2 2
where σy = 1 and α = 1.5.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 6 of 42

3.4. Modeling the Basic GOA

The developed GOA algorithm mimics the way that gazelles survive. The optimization
process entails grazing without a predator and fleeing to a refuge when one is seen. As a
result, there are two steps to the described GOA algorithm optimization procedure [23].

3.4.1. Exploitation
In this stage, it is assumed that there is no predator present or that the predator is only
stalking the gazelles while they calmly graze. During this phase, neighborhood regions of
the domain are efficiently covered using the Brownian motion, characterized by uniform
and controlled steps. As shown in Figure 1, it is expected that the gazelles walk in a
Brownian motion during grazing.

Figure 1. The gazelle’s grazing pattern denotes exploitation.

Equation (11) illustrates the mathematical formula of this phenomenon.

gazellei+1 = gazellei + s.R ∗ R B ∗ ( Elite − R B ∗ gazellei ) (11)

where gazellei+1 is the solution for the following iteration, gazellei is the solution for the
current iteration, s is the pace at which the gazelles graze, R B is a vector of constant
random integers [0, 1], and R is a vector of different random numbers reflecting the
Brownian motion.

3.4.2. Exploration
When a predator is seen, the exploring phase begins. The 2 m height is mimicked
by scaling the 2 m height to a figure between 0 and 1. Gazelles respond to danger by
flicking their tail, stomping their feet, or stotting up to 2 m in the air with all four feet. This
algorithm phase uses the Lévy flight, which involves a series of little steps and sporadic
large jumps. This strategy has enhanced searchability in the literature on optimization.
In Figure 2, the exploring phase is shown. Once the predator is seen, the gazelle flees,
and the predator pursues. Both runs exhibit a sharp turn in travel direction, symbolized
by the mu. This study assumed that this direction shift happens every iteration; when the
iteration number is odd, the gazelle moves in one direction, and when it is even, it moves
in the opposite direction. We hypothesized that because the gazelle reacts first, it uses the
Lévy flight to move. The study assumed that the predator would lift off utilizing Brownian
motion and switch to Lévy flight since the predator would respond later.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 7 of 42

Figure 2. Gazelles fleeing the predator is a sign of exploration.

Equation (12) illustrates the computational formula of the gazelle’s behavior after
spotting the predator.
−−−−−−→ −−−−→ −→ −−→ − → −−−−→
gazellei+1 = gazellei + S.µ. R L ∗ ( Elitei − R L ∗ gazellei ) (12)
−
→
where S represents the fastest the gazelle can go, and R L is a vector of random integers
generated using Lévy distributions. Equation (13) illustrates the computational formula for
the predator’s pursuit of the gazelle.
−−−−−−→ −−−−→ → −−→ −
− → −−−−→
gazellei+1 = gazellei + S.µ.CF.R ∗ R B ∗ ( Elitei − R L ∗ gazellei ) (13)

where,
iter iter
CF = (1 − )(2 max_iter ) (14)
max_iter
The research on Mongolian gazelles also claimed that even though the animals are
not endangered, they have annual survivorship of 0.66, which translates to just 0.34 in-
stances where predators are effective. PSRs, which stand for predator success rates, impact
the gazelle’s capacity to flee. Therefore, the method prevents becoming stuck in a local
minimum. Equation (15) models the impact of PSRs.
−−−−→ h−
→ − → −→ − → − →i

−−−−−−→  gazellei + CF LB + R ∗ (UB − LB) ∗ U , if r ≤ PSRs
gazellei+1 = −−−−→ (15)
 gazelle + [ PSRs(1 − r ) + r ](−−−−−→ −−−−−→
gazelle − gazelle ), else
i r1 r2
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 8 of 42

(
−
→ 0 if r < 0.34
U = (16)
1 otherwise
The main procedure of the basic IGOA is presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Procedure of the basic GOA.

4. The Proposed Method

In this section, the proposed IGOA is presented according to its main search procedures.

4.1. Orthogonal Learning (OL)

A fractional experiment holds the secret to the orthogonal design. Finding the opti-
mum level combination may be accomplished fast by utilizing the features of a fractional
experiment to produce all possible level combinations. The standard approach to finding
the best level for each variable is to cycle via all levels, supposing that the experimental
findings of the objective issue rely on the K factor, which may be split into Q levels. When
there are a few factors involved, this strategy works quite well. However, when many fac-
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 9 of 42

tors are involved, it becomes very challenging to reach every level. This traversal approach
differs from orthogonal design. Through an orthogonal array, it mixes various elements
and stories. As an illustration, the construction procedure follows: build the introductory
column first, then the nonbasic column [26,27]. The following Equation describes how to
create an orthogonal array of L10 (34 ).
 
1 1 1 1
1 2 2 2
 
1 3 3 3
 
2 1 2 3
 
2 2 3 1
 
4
L10 (3 ) =  (17)
2 3 1 2

3 1 3 2
 
 
3 2 1 3
 
3 3 2 1
4 1 1 1

4.2. Rosenbrock’s Direct Rotational (RDR)

The coordinate axes are used as the initial search path in Rosenbrock’s direct rotation
(RDR) local search technology, which then rotates along these directions before moving to
a new arrangement point where effective steps are produced until at least one effective
process and one failed step has been made in each search direction [28]. In this scenario,
the present phase will end, and the orthonormal basis will be revised to account for the
cumulative impact of all successful steps in all dimensions [29]. Equation (18) displays the
orthonormal basis update.
n
x k +1 − x k + = ∑ λi di (18)
i =1

Equation (19) defines the new set of guidelines. Where λi is the total number of
successful design variables, the most beneficial search direction at this point is x k+1 − x k+ ;
hence, it must be included in the revised search direction.
(
di , λi = 0
pi = n (19)
∑ j =0 j j λ i 6 = 0
λ d ,

The search results are then updated using the Gram–Schmidt orthonormalization
process as given in Equation (20).

 pi , i=1
qi = T
1 q j pi (20)
 pi − ∑ij−
=1 q T q j , i≥2
j

Equation (21) displays the modified search instructions upon normalization.

qi
di = , i = 1, 2, 3, ...., n. (21)
k qi k

The technique searches once more along the new opposite manner after updating the
local search, continuing until the end condition is fulfilled.

4.3. Procedure of the Proposed IGOA

The suggested IGOA is presented in this section to demonstrate its primary process
and structure. The three primary methods—GOA, OL, and RDR—are employed in the
suggested technique, subject to three phases following a transition mechanism. The sug-
gested IGOA modifies the placements of the solutions in accordance with an assumption
(IF rand < 0.2). The search procedure is checked at the end to see if it may be terminated
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 10 of 42

or kept on. The search operations of the OL will be carried out if this is the case; other-
wise, IF rand < 0.5, the search processes of the RDR will be carried out. If not, the search
procedures will be excused in accordance with the GOA’s exploration and exploitation.
The main procedure of the proposed IGOA is presented in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Procedure of the proposed IGOA.

By creating a novel arrangement (transition mechanism) and utilizing three integrated

approaches, the suggested method addresses the shortcomings of the conventional methods
(i.e., GOA, LO, and RDR). The traditional approach, such as GOA, has problems with quick
convergence rates, saturation in the immediate search region, and an imbalance between
the search stages (exploration and exploitation). One of the critical issues with the GOA is
that the variety of possible solutions is possibly low. In order to solve clustering difficulties
more effectively, the suggested technique has an appropriate arrangement among the
existing methods to meet these issues.
In conclusion, we demonstrate how the flaws were fixed. The first step is to address
the imbalance between the search processes by doing an exploration search of OL and
RDR for half of the iterations and an exploitation search of GOA for the other half. Thus,
the suggested force arrangement may balance the search processes and increase variety in
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 11 of 42

the candidate solutions by selecting one exploration or exploitation process out of three
approaches in each iteration. Second, adjustments in the search procedure made in accor-
dance with the suggested transition mechanism would regulate the pace of convergence.
This impacts the optimization process by causing it to avoid the local search region and
continue searching for the optimal answer. Finally, using various updating mechanisms
per the suggested methodology will preserve the diversity of the solutions employed.

4.4. Computational Complexity of the Proposed IGOA

The suggested IGOA’s total computing complexity is provided according to the initial-
ization of the candidate solutions, the objective function of the existing solutions, and the
updating of the candidate solutions.
Assume that N is the number of all utilized solutions, and O(N) is the complexity
time of the solutions’ initialization. The time complexity of the solutions’ updating is
O(T × N) + O(T × N × Dim), where T is the total number of used iterations. Dim is the
location size of the problem. Therefore, the time complexity of the presented IGOA is given
as follows.
O( IGOA) = ( N ) × O( GOA) + O(OL) + O( RDR) (22)
The time complexity of the proposed method depends on three main search operators;
GOA, OL, and RDR. These methods’ complexity times are calculated as follows.

O(OL) = O( N × (max_iter × Dim + 1)) (23)

O( GOA) = O( N × (max_iter × Dim + 1)) (24)

O( RDR) = O( N × Dim) (25)
Therefore, the total time complexity of the IGOA is given as follows.

O( IGOA) = O(max_iter × N × ( Dim + 1) + ( N × Dim) + ( N × Dim)) (26)

O( IGOA) = O(max_iter × N × ( Dim + N )) (27)

5. Experiments and Results

The suggested approach (IGOA) is tested in this part to solve the optimization prob-
lems (data clustering problems). The outcomes are assessed using various metrics. Ad-
ditionally, the suggested method’s considerable benefits over previous comparative ap-
proaches in the literature are demonstrated using the Friedman ranking test (FRT) and
Wilcoxon signed-rank (WRT) test.
To evaluate the outcomes of the suggested strategy, a number of optimizers are
employed as comparing techniques.
These methods are the salp swarm algorithm (SSA) [30], whale optimization algorithm
(WOA) [31], sine–cosine algorithm (SCA) [32], dragonfly algorithm (DA) [33], grey wolf
optimizer (GWO) [34], equilibrium optimizer (EO) [35], particle swarm optimizer (PSO) [36],
Aquila optimizer (AO) [37], ant lion optimizer (ALO) [38], marine predators algorithm
(MPA) [39], and gazelle optimization algorithm (GOA).
The findings are reported after 30 separate runs of each comparison approach with a
population size of 30 and 1000 iterations. The parameters for the comparison approaches
are set out in Table 1 in the ’Parameter’ column. Table 2 lists the specifics of the computers
that were used.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 12 of 42

Table 1. Setting of the comparative methods’ parameters.

No. Algorithm Reference Parameter Value

1 SSA [32] v0 0
2 WOA [40] α Decreased from 2 to 0
b 2
3 SCA [41] α 0.05
4 DA [33] w 0.2–0.9
s, a, and c 0.1
f and e 1
5 GWO [34] Convergence parameter (a) Linear reduction from 2 to 0
6 PSO [36] Topology Fully connected
Cognitive and social constant (C1, C2) 2, 2
Inertia weight Linear reduction from 0.9 to 0.1
Velocity limit 10% of dimension range
7 ALO [38] α ∈ [0 1]
8 MPA [39] γ γ>1
P 0.0
9 EO [35] r 0.5
a 4
GP 0.5
10 AO [37] α 0.1
δ 0.1

Table 2. Details of the utilized computers.

Name Setting
Software
- Operating system 64-Bit
- Windows Windows 10
- Language MATLAB R2015a
Hardware
- CPU Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 processor
- Frequency 2.3 GHz
- RAM 16 GB
- Hard disk 1000 GB

5.1. Experiments Series 1: Classical Benchmark Problems

In this section, the performance of the proposed method is evaluated using a set of
23 classical benchmark functions.
The mathematical representation and classifications of the applied 23 benchmark
functions are shown in Table 3. The benchmark functions are unimodal (F1–F7); they are
used to assess the exploitation capability of the proposed method as they have one optimal
solution. Multimodal (F8–F13) has several local optima and one global optimum used to
evaluate the algorithm’s exploration. The fixed-dimension multimodal has a limited search
space to assess the equilibrium between exploration and exploitation.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 13 of 42

Table 3. Classical benchmark functions.

Function Description Dimensions Range f min

F1 f (x) = ∑in=1 xi2 10, 50, 100, 500 [−100, 100] 0
F2 f (x) = ∑in=0 | xi | + ∏in=0 | xi | 10, 50, 100, 500 [−10, 10] 0
F3 f (x) = ∑id=1 (∑ij=1 x j )2 10, 50, 100, 500 [−100, 100] 0
F4 f (x) = maxi {| xi |, 1 ≤ i ≤ n} 10, 50, 100, 500 [−100, 100] 0
F5 f (x) = ∑in=−11 [100( xi2 − xi+1 )2 + (1 − xi )2 ] 10, 50, 100, 500 [−30, 30] 0
F6 f (x) = ∑in=1 ([ xi + 0.5])2 10, 50, 100, 500 [−100, 100] 0
F7 f (x) = ∑in=0 ixi4 + random
p [0, 1) 10, 50, 100, 500 [−128, 128] 0
F8 f (x) = ∑in=1 (− xi sin( | xi |)) 10, 50, 100, 500 [−500, 500] −418.9829 × n
n
F9 f (x) = ∑i=1 [ xi2 − 10cosq(2πxi ) + 10] 10, 50, 100, 500 [−5.12, 5.12] 0
1 n n
F10 f ( x ) = −20exp(−0.2 n∑i=1 xi2 ) − exp( n1 ∑i=1 cos(2πxi )) + 20 + e 10, 50, 100, 500 [−32, 32] 0
1 n n xi
F11 f (x) = 1 + 4000 ∑ i =1 xi2 − ∏i=1 cos( i )
√ 10, 50, 100, 500 [−600, 600] 0
F12 f (x) = n {10sin ( πy
π
1 )} + ∑in=−11 (yi − 1)2 [1 + 10sin2 (πyi+1 ) + ∑in=1 u( xi , 10, 100, 4)] , where yi = 1 + 10, 50, 100, 500 [−50, 50] 0
m
xi + 1  K ( xi − a )
 if xi > a
, u( xi , a, k, m) 0 − a ≤ xi ≥ a
4 K (− x − a)m − a ≤ x

i i
F13 f ( x ) = 0.1(sin2 (3πx1 ) + ∑in=1 ( xi − 1)2 [1 + sin2 (3πxi + 1)] + ( xn − 1)2 1 + sin2 (2πxn )) + 10, 50, 100, 500 [−50, 50] 0
n
∑i=1 u( xi , 5, 100, 4)
  −1
F14 f ( x ) = 500 1
+ ∑25 1
j=1 j+∑2 ( xi − aij ) 2 [−65, 65] 1
i =1 
2
x 1 ( b 2 + bi x 2 )

F15 f ( x ) = ∑11i =1 a i − 2
i 4 [−5, 5] 0.00030
b + bi x 3 + x 4
i
F16 f ( x ) = 4x12 − 2.1x14 + 31 x16 + x1 x2 − 4x22 + 4x24 2 [−5, 5] −1.0316
 2
F17 f(x)= x2 − 5.12 x12 + π5 x1 − 6 + 10(1 − 8π 1
)cos x1 + 10 2 [−5, 5] 0.398
4π
1 + ( x1 + x2 + 1)2 (19 − 14x1 + 3x12 − 14x2 + 6x1 x2 + 3x22 )
 
F18 f (x) = × 2 [−2, 2] 3
2 2 2
 
30 + (2x1 − 3x2 ) × (18 − 32xi + 12x1 +
48x2 − 36x1 x2 + 27x2 )
F19 f ( x ) = − ∑4i=1 ci exp − ∑3i=1 aij ( x j − pij )2
3 [−1, 2] −3.86
F20 f ( x ) = − ∑4i=1 ci exp − ∑6i=1 aij ( x j − pij )2 6 [0, 1] −0.32
 −1
f ( x ) = − ∑5i=1 ( X − ai )( X − ai )T + ci

F21 4 [0, 1] −10.1532
7 T
 −1
f ( x ) = − ∑i=1 ( X − ai )( X − ai ) + ci

F22 4 [0, 1] −10.4028
10 T
 −1
f ( x ) = − ∑i=1 ( X − ai )( X − ai ) + ci

F23 4 [0, 1] −10.5363
Note: Unimodal functions are from F1–F7, multimodal functions are from F8–F13, and fixed-dimension multi-
modal functions are from F14–F23.

To find the best number of used candidate solutions of the proposed method, experi-
ments were conducted as shown in Figure 5. The influence of the number of solutions (i.e.,
N) is examined on the classical test functions (23 benchmark functions). According to the
literature, several numbers were taken to choose the population size; these numbers were
5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, and 50, comparing the changes in the number of solution
parameters throughout iterations (i.e., 500 iterations).

Figure 5. Cont.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 14 of 42

Figure 5. The influence of the population size tested on the classical test functions.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 15 of 42

Usually, the used solution numbers range from 5 to 50. For example, if we look at
F5, F6, F7, and F9, we find slight differences between the solutions used, as 30 is almost
the best-utilized number. This size had the best results on average as this value can be
considered the smallest number of the used best numbers (30 solutions), as given in F17–F22.
The best number of solutions between several values is the smallest one, to maintain low
computational time and obtain the maximum performance. It can be observed from the
obtained results in Figure 5 that when these many population sizes are used, the proposed
IGOA method keeps its advantages, which means that IGOA is more robust and less
overwhelmed by population size. The proposed IGOA is more stable when the population
changes, such as F10, F16, F17, F18, F19, F21, F22, and F23. In other words, the best number
of solutions is 50 in most of the used benchmark functions (i.e., F1, F6, F9, F10, F11, etc.).
However, because there is little difference between the given number of solutions, the claim
as mentioned earlier is supported.
Deep investigations were conducted to show the performance of the proposed method
compared to the original methods as given in Figure 6. In this Figure, in each row, four
sub-figures are given: function topology, trajectory of the first dimension, average fitness
values, and convergence curves of the tested methods.

Figure 6. Cont.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 16 of 42

Figure 6. Qualitative results of the proposed method.

In the first column in Figure 6, the standard 2D designs of the fitness function are
provided. The second column presents the first position story collected by the proposed
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 17 of 42

IGOA through the optimization process. IGOA examines promising areas in the assigned
search space for the used problems. Unique positions are given in a broad search space,
while the largest is developed around the local region for the provided problems because
of these difficulty levels. The second column, trajectory patterns, shows that the solution
achieves significant and acute changes in the optimization’s first actions. This operation
can confirm that the proposed IGOA can ultimately meet the optimal position. The third
column presents the average fitness value of the used candidate solutions in each repe-
tition. The curves display shrinking behaviors on the employed problems. This proves
that the proposed IGOA enhances the performance of the search process for iterations.
In the fourth column, the objective function value of the best-obtained solution in each
repetition is presented. Consequently, the proposed IGOA has preferred exploration and
exploitation aptitudes.
The results of the proposed IGOA, compared to the other comparative methods using
classical (F1–F13) benchmark functions, where the dimension size is 10, are given in Table 4.
A very impressive indication is observed when the proposed method achieved all of the best
results in the tested cases (F1–F13). According to the FRT, the proposed method ranked first,
followed by AO, MPA, GOA, EO, WOA, GWO, PSO, SCA, SSA, ALO, and DE. In Table 5,
the results of the proposed IGOA are compared to other comparative methods using
classical benchmark functions (F14–F23), where the dimension size was fixed. From this
table, we notice that the proposed method had the best results in almost all of the tested
problems, except F15, where it obtained the second-best results. So, the archived results
prove that the proposed IGOA has a promising ability to solve the benchmark problems.
According to the FRT, the proposed IGOA ranked first, followed by MPA, SSA, GWO, EO,
AO, ALO, PSO, DA, WOA, SCA, and GOA.
For further investigation, the WRT was applied in Table 6 to find the significant
improvements that cases obtained in the proposed IGOA compared to the comparative
methods (i.e., SSA, WOA, SCA, DA, GWO, PSO, ALO, MPA, EO, AO, and GOA). The pro-
posed method had 16 significant improvements out of 23 compared to SSA; it obtained
14 significant improvements out of 23 compared to WOA; it obtained 17 significant im-
provements out of 23 compared to SSA; it obtained 19 significant improvements out of
23 compared to SCA; it obtained 16 significant improvements out of 23 compared to DA; it
obtained 16 significant improvements out of 23 compared to GWO; it obtained 15 significant
improvements out of 23 compared to PSO; it obtained 15 significant improvements out
of 23 compared to ALO; it obtained 14 significant improvements out of 23 compared to
MPA; it obtained 11 significant improvements out of 23 compared to EO; and it obtained
17 significant improvements out of 23 compared to GOA.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 18 of 42

Table 4. The results of the proposed IGOA and other comparative methods using classical benchmark functions (F1–F13), where the dimension size is 10.

Comparative Algorithms
Measure
SSA WOA SCA DA GWO PSO ALO MPA EO AO GOA IGOA
F1
Max 5.6687E-06 3.0768E-29 9.2720E-03 3.7901E+02 4.5916E-18 6.0401E-03 5.2574E-01 1.9657E-29 3.8998E-26 9.5870E-81 1.6001E-40 4.0016E-111
Mean 1.6182E-06 7.6986E-30 2.3193E-03 2.5349E+02 1.5936E-18 1.6560E-03 1.3154E-01 9.7494E-30 1.6302E-26 2.4125E-81 4.0002E-41 1.0004E-111
Min 1.4128E-07 1.4455E-36 9.0439E-08 1.0313E+02 1.2000E-19 7.8798E-06 7.9433E-05 4.8694E-30 3.6988E-27 1.4810E-85 1.6323E-122 2.5272E-123
Std 2.7047E-06 1.5380E-29 4.6352E-03 1.2133E+02 2.0273E-18 2.9346E-03 2.6280E-01 6.9322E-30 1.5858E-26 4.7830E-81 8.0003E-41 2.0008E-111
Ranking 8 4 10 12 7 9 11 5 6 2 3 1
F2
Max 7.7959E+00 2.1492E-29 1.1036E-04 2.2195E+01 3.3639E-11 1.6219E-01 1.9575E+01 2.6474E-16 1.4528E-14 7.8147E-44 6.4440E-71 0.0000E+00
Mean 3.0662E+00 5.9613E-30 4.4043E-05 1.1944E+01 1.2412E-11 1.1260E-01 8.5054E+00 1.4902E-16 3.8156E-15 2.0429E-44 1.6110E-71 0.0000E+00
Min 5.4086E-01 3.1640E-34 5.9247E-06 3.0554E+00 1.8400E-12 9.3967E-03 1.4917E+00 1.7669E-17 2.9474E-17 1.0185E-49 3.4455E-95 0.0000E+00
Std 3.3581E+00 1.0413E-29 4.6685E-05 7.8998E+00 1.4482E-11 7.0423E-02 7.7648E+00 1.0159E-16 7.1434E-15 3.8512E-44 3.2220E-71 0.0000E+00
Ranking 10 4 8 12 7 9 11 5 6 3 2 1
F3
Max 1.2878E+03 3.1583E+03 7.2366E+01 6.6942E+03 3.5163E-07 3.4736E+00 5.4055E+03 8.8765E-13 2.7141E-11 4.1515E-79 4.0712E-09 1.8119E-94
Mean 5.0275E+02 1.7896E+03 3.3041E+01 4.9705E+03 1.2577E-07 1.5269E+00 3.5168E+03 2.3968E-13 1.0682E-11 1.0379E-79 1.0178E-09 4.5299E-95
Min 6.5881E+01 7.8867E+02 1.0676E-01 3.4937E+02 1.0960E-08 4.5930E-02 2.0838E+03 6.1340E-17 4.4484E-13 1.3725E-90 0.0000E+00 1.4890E-115
Std 5.5639E+02 1.0134E+03 3.7958E+01 3.0848E+03 1.5853E-07 1.4318E+00 1.3815E+03 4.3327E-13 1.1833E-11 2.0757E-79 2.0356E-09 9.0597E-95
Ranking 9 10 8 12 6 7 11 3 4 2 5 1
F4
Max 1.1350E+01 2.4947E+01 5.2459E-01 3.4546E+01 7.0394E-06 2.5740E-01 2.5872E+01 5.0672E-13 6.4122E-08 7.0382E-40 1.9988E-23 9.7425E-52
Mean 4.7755E+00 1.0417E+01 3.4400E-01 1.8807E+01 2.2793E-06 1.6819E-01 1.8858E+01 3.1893E-13 1.8603E-08 1.8001E-40 4.9970E-24 2.4506E-52
Min 1.0957E+00 2.8202E+00 1.5933E-01 8.1766E+00 2.3154E-07 9.0260E-02 1.2936E+01 5.3543E-14 7.8747E-10 1.2170E-48 1.8617E-77 3.5318E-62
Std 4.5106E+00 1.0221E+01 1.9127E-01 1.1584E+01 3.1913E-06 6.8608E-02 5.7790E+00 2.1383E-13 3.0477E-08 3.4929E-40 9.9939E-24 4.8613E-52
Ranking 9 10 8 11 6 7 12 4 5 2 3 1
F5
Max 2.4884E+03 8.9652E+00 8.9499E+00 3.9872E+04 8.0846E+00 9.6438E+01 2.9905E+04 8.5294E+00 8.7210E+00 1.9262E-01 8.5801E+00 3.4160E-02
Mean 1.1873E+03 8.8175E+00 8.4259E+00 2.4852E+04 7.6262E+00 3.5639E+01 8.2018E+03 7.2907E+00 7.7837E+00 8.6155E-02 8.2137E+00 1.8406E-02
Min 7.7911E+00 8.5543E+00 8.0821E+00 1.3031E+04 7.1861E+00 7.4127E+00 2.5891E+02 6.2748E+00 7.1336E+00 2.0769E-06 7.7814E+00 1.4281E-03
Std 1.3156E+03 1.9212E-01 3.6921E-01 1.1143E+04 5.0584E-01 4.1800E+01 1.4479E+04 9.2936E-01 7.5787E-01 9.7685E-02 3.4581E-01 1.5032E-02
Ranking 10 8 7 12 4 9 11 3 5 2 6 1
F6
Max 1.8987E-02 7.1473E-01 1.4622E+00 2.5496E+02 7.5229E-01 8.3608E-04 1.2734E-02 7.7604E-02 4.9193E-01 3.3793E-04 4.6477E-01 3.2478E-04
Mean 6.9763E-03 4.8733E-01 1.0843E+00 2.1284E+02 3.7321E-01 3.8147E-04 3.2223E-03 1.9401E-02 1.2318E-01 1.9276E-04 3.4021E-01 9.2145E-05
Min 1.1915E-06 3.2553E-01 8.8693E-01 1.8611E+02 1.4414E-05 1.9334E-05 2.9475E-05 9.0157E-10 2.0808E-05 5.9616E-06 2.5929E-01 4.4427E-08
Std 9.0313E-03 1.7744E-01 2.6857E-01 3.1781E+01 3.2201E-01 3.6694E-04 6.3413E-03 3.8802E-02 2.4583E-01 1.4224E-04 9.4276E-02 1.5640E-04
Ranking 5 10 11 12 9 3 4 6 7 2 8 1
F7
Max 9.4570E-02 5.1017E-02 1.3523E-02 4.6264E-01 5.0253E-03 1.6015E-01 7.5349E-01 1.4525E-03 4.0995E-03 1.5900E-03 1.0205E-03 1.4519E-04
Mean 7.4271E-02 1.3559E-02 7.8508E-03 2.1954E-01 3.0991E-03 8.1841E-02 4.5660E-01 1.1726E-03 1.8678E-03 5.9058E-04 5.0738E-04 9.7675E-05
Min 5.6938E-02 6.9400E-04 4.3940E-03 9.3729E-02 2.1818E-03 3.0057E-02 8.7673E-02 8.4107E-04 9.6380E-04 1.7258E-05 2.2784E-04 4.4478E-05
Std 1.9462E-02 2.4974E-02 4.2216E-03 1.6841E-01 1.3158E-03 6.1565E-02 2.7498E-01 2.9914E-04 1.4989E-03 7.0301E-04 3.6238E-04 4.4662E-05
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 19 of 42

Table 4. Cont.

Comparative Algorithms
Measure
SSA WOA SCA DA GWO PSO ALO MPA EO AO GOA IGOA
Ranking 9 8 7 11 6 10 12 4 5 3 2 1
F8
Max −2.2734E+03 −1.8870E+03 −1.6176E+03 −1.8505E+03 −2.1174E+03 −1.2648E+03 −1.9152E+03 −2.8653E+03 −2.4220E+03 −1.6770E+03 −2.0896E+03 −2.7694E+07
Mean −2.5962E+03 −2.7810E+03 −1.9484E+03 −2.1719E+03 −2.4186E+03 −1.4903E+03 −2.0689E+03 −3.3299E+03 −2.8783E+03 −2.4188E+03 −2.2345E+03 −1.2332E+08
Min −3.1435E+03 −3.4289E+03 −2.3834E+03 −2.7042E+03 −2.6000E+03 −1.6333E+03 −2.3523E+03 −3.5369E+03 −3.4762E+03 −4.1864E+03 −2.3109E+03 −2.5083E+08
Std 3.8896E+02 6.4835E+02 3.2334E+02 3.7546E+02 2.0990E+02 1.6288E+02 2.0383E+02 3.1353E+02 4.4133E+02 1.1838E+03 9.9463E+01 1.0036E+08
Ranking 5 4 11 9 7 12 10 2 3 6 8 1
F9
Max 3.6813E+01 1.5062E+00 1.2066E+00 7.0022E+01 4.7147E+00 3.0419E+01 7.6611E+01 1.4211E-14 3.0381E+00 2.6242E-01 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00
Mean 2.5869E+01 3.7655E-01 3.0890E-01 5.7496E+01 2.6264E+00 1.7201E+01 5.7956E+01 3.5527E-15 1.0083E+00 6.5605E-02 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00
Min 1.5920E+01 0.0000E+00 2.0227E-06 4.7361E+01 4.2633E-14 5.9917E+00 3.7810E+01 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00
Std 9.0092E+00 7.5310E-01 5.9859E-01 1.0614E+01 1.9778E+00 1.0360E+01 1.7468E+01 7.1054E-15 1.4322E+00 1.3121E-01 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00
Ranking 10 6 5 11 8 9 12 3 7 4 1 1
F10
Max 1.9965E+01 4.3521E-14 1.3360E+01 1.5782E+01 3.2645E-10 2.3169E+00 1.5140E+01 7.9936E-15 7.6827E-13 8.8818E-16 8.8818E-16 8.8818E-16
Mean 7.0934E+00 1.6875E-14 3.3500E+00 1.0033E+01 2.0063E-10 5.8999E-01 1.2971E+01 5.3291E-15 2.7711E-13 8.8818E-16 8.8818E-16 8.8818E-16
Min 1.6466E+00 8.8818E-16 4.6053E-05 3.4909E+00 4.7813E-11 3.8237E-03 9.6145E+00 4.4409E-15 5.0626E-14 8.8818E-16 8.8818E-16 8.8818E-16
Std 8.6251E+00 1.8687E-14 6.6735E+00 5.0775E+00 1.3298E-10 1.1513E+00 2.3725E+00 1.7764E-15 3.3477E-13 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00
Ranking 10 5 9 11 7 8 12 4 6 1 1 1
F11
Max 1.9439E-01 0.0000E+00 4.7522E-01 7.2161E+00 6.3368E-02 5.2703E+00 5.5890E-01 1.7339E-02 2.6300E-02 0.0000E+00 3.5947E-02 0.0000E+00
Mean 1.5599E-01 0.0000E+00 3.1614E-01 4.3403E+00 3.9139E-02 2.1440E+00 2.5481E-01 4.3347E-03 9.0506E-03 0.0000E+00 8.9867E-03 0.0000E+00
Min 9.1527E-02 0.0000E+00 5.0005E-02 2.1045E+00 2.6828E-02 2.9533E-01 3.7795E-02 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00
Std 4.8640E-02 0.0000E+00 1.9205E-01 2.1867E+00 1.6448E-02 2.1658E+00 2.3401E-01 8.6694E-03 1.2411E-02 0.0000E+00 1.7973E-02 0.0000E+00
Ranking 8 1 10 12 7 11 9 4 6 1 5 1
F12
Max 1.1753E+01 2.6635E-01 1.8565E+00 1.7519E+01 1.5264E-01 6.1327E-04 4.0024E+01 1.5225E-02 2.0023E-02 3.8124E-04 3.3640E-01 2.5541E-04
Mean 5.2622E+00 2.2869E-01 6.9748E-01 7.8833E+00 7.3856E-02 1.8414E-04 1.5694E+01 3.8159E-03 8.8384E-03 2.1247E-04 2.8413E-01 1.7172E-04
Min 1.2927E+00 1.8560E-01 1.4509E-01 1.5513E+00 4.2429E-02 5.1148E-06 6.8637E+00 2.2171E-09 5.5321E-06 8.5093E-05 2.0181E-01 7.8122E-05
Std 4.6576E+00 3.5965E-02 7.8947E-01 6.8630E+00 5.3004E-02 2.8779E-04 1.6242E+01 7.6063E-03 1.0349E-02 1.2764E-04 5.7632E-02 7.3077E-05
Ranking 10 7 9 11 6 2 12 4 5 3 8 1
F13
Max 2.5967E+00 5.1313E-01 9.8470E-01 3.6598E+05 5.2436E-01 1.0989E-02 1.7543E+01 5.4243E-02 2.4034E-01 7.9376E-03 9.9617E-01 6.4710E-04
Mean 6.9400E-01 4.6523E-01 6.8633E-01 9.1861E+04 2.9147E-01 2.7604E-03 8.9895E+00 1.8705E-02 1.6238E-01 1.9946E-03 8.1993E-01 2.2333E-04
Min 2.8184E-02 4.4162E-01 5.5358E-01 2.2382E+00 1.0911E-01 2.5130E-07 3.0920E-02 1.7929E-08 1.0272E-01 1.1894E-05 6.8063E-01 4.5897E-05
Std 1.2691E+00 3.3200E-02 2.0330E-01 1.8275E+05 1.7691E-01 5.4854E-03 8.3440E+00 2.5601E-02 5.9648E-02 3.9620E-03 1.3519E-01 2.8682E-04
Ranking 9 7 8 12 6 3 11 4 5 2 10 1
Friedman test
Mean Rank 8.62 6.46 8.54 11.38 6.62 7.62 10.62 3.92 5.38 2.54 4.77 1.00
Final Ranking 10 6 9 12 7 8 11 3 5 2 4 1
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 20 of 42

Table 5. The results of the proposed IGOA and other comparative methods using classical benchmark functions (F14–F23), where the dimension size is a fixed size.

Comparative Algorithms
Measure
SSA WOA SCA DA GWO PSO ALO MPA EO AO GOA IGOA
F14
Max 2.9821E+00 1.0763E+01 2.9821E+00 1.5504E+01 1.0763E+01 1.5504E+01 2.3809E+01 1.2671E+01 1.0763E+01 1.2671E+01 1.2671E+01 1.9920E+00
Mean 1.4940E+00 3.9616E+00 2.4866E+00 5.3690E+00 8.8179E+00 1.1203E+01 1.0637E+01 5.1574E+00 4.6720E+00 7.0828E+00 1.2194E+01 1.2465E+00
Min 9.9800E-01 9.9800E-01 1.0001E+00 9.9800E-01 2.9821E+00 5.9288E+00 3.9683E+00 1.9920E+00 9.9800E-01 9.9800E-01 1.0763E+01 9.9800E-01
Std 9.9205E-01 4.6251E+00 9.9101E-01 6.8049E+00 3.8905E+00 5.0297E+00 9.0070E+00 5.0305E+00 4.6790E+00 6.4649E+00 9.5366E-01 4.9701E-01
Ranking 2 4 3 7 9 11 10 6 5 8 12 1
F15
Max 1.7018E-03 4.3071E-03 1.5907E-03 2.7670E-02 1.4827E-03 1.7771E-03 1.8452E-02 3.3202E-04 2.0363E-02 1.2317E-03 8.9716E-02 6.4899E-04
Mean 1.5560E-03 1.6586E-03 1.3341E-03 1.2183E-02 6.4339E-04 1.0875E-03 7.7714E-03 3.1617E-04 1.0343E-02 7.0995E-04 4.7898E-02 5.0192E-04
Min 1.4119E-03 3.3772E-04 8.9731E-04 6.5750E-04 3.1075E-04 7.6724E-04 2.9649E-03 3.0749E-04 3.0935E-04 3.3906E-04 2.9486E-02 4.4828E-04
Std 1.5860E-04 1.7941E-03 3.0634E-04 1.1296E-02 5.6338E-04 4.7034E-04 7.3060E-03 1.1593E-05 1.1570E-02 4.0040E-04 2.8449E-02 9.8118E-05
Ranking 7 8 6 11 3 5 9 1 10 4 12 2
F16
Max −1.0316E+00 −1.0316E+00 −1.0000E+00 −1.0308E+00 −1.0316E+00 −1.0291E+00 −1.0316E+00 −1.0316E+00 −1.0316E+00 −1.0096E+00 −1.0316E+00 −1.0316E+00
Mean −1.0316E+00 −1.0316E+00 −1.0236E+00 −1.0313E+00 −1.0316E+00 −1.0308E+00 −1.0316E+00 −1.0316E+00 −1.0316E+00 −1.0198E+00 −1.0316E+00 −1.0316E+00
Min −1.0316E+00 −1.0316E+00 −1.0316E+00 −1.0316E+00 −1.0316E+00 −1.0316E+00 −1.0316E+00 −1.0316E+00 −1.0316E+00 −1.0249E+00 −1.0316E+00 −1.0316E+00
Std 1.1358E-13 9.0053E-06 1.5707E-02 3.2551E-04 7.7555E-08 1.1721E-03 6.8452E-13 1.8559E-13 3.4995E-14 7.0603E-03 2.2852E-07 0.0000E+00
Ranking 4 8 11 9 6 10 5 3 2 12 7 1
F17
Max 3.9789E-01 4.2689E-01 4.3137E-01 3.9874E-01 3.9795E-01 4.8050E-01 3.9789E-01 3.9789E-01 3.9789E-01 4.0216E-01 1.5356E+00 3.9789E-01
Mean 3.9789E-01 4.0740E-01 4.1413E-01 3.9832E-01 3.9791E-01 4.2242E-01 3.9789E-01 3.9789E-01 3.9789E-01 3.9922E-01 9.0263E-01 3.9789E-01
Min 3.9789E-01 3.9866E-01 3.9906E-01 3.9789E-01 3.9789E-01 3.9863E-01 3.9789E-01 3.9789E-01 3.9789E-01 3.9790E-01 4.4057E-01 3.9789E-01
Std 1.6369E-14 1.3370E-02 1.6334E-02 3.5436E-04 2.6611E-05 3.8869E-02 4.9152E-13 5.5505E-13 2.7422E-09 2.0199E-03 5.2840E-01 0.0000E+00
Ranking 2 9 10 7 6 11 4 3 5 8 12 1
F18
Max 3.0000E+00 3.0579E+01 3.0022E+00 3.0021E+00 8.4001E+01 3.0542E+00 3.0000E+00 3.0000E+00 3.0000E+00 3.6799E+00 8.4339E+01 3.0000E+00
Mean 3.0000E+00 1.6688E+01 3.0013E+00 3.0010E+00 3.0001E+01 3.0141E+00 3.0000E+00 3.0000E+00 3.0000E+00 3.3010E+00 2.4463E+01 3.0000E+00
Min 3.0000E+00 3.0053E+00 3.0007E+00 3.0001E+00 3.0001E+00 3.0000E+00 3.0000E+00 3.0000E+00 3.0000E+00 3.0190E+00 3.0000E+00 3.0000E+00
Std 6.2815E-13 1.5784E+01 6.6423E-04 9.1491E-04 3.8184E+01 2.6794E-02 2.6479E-11 2.2338E-13 3.8520E-07 2.7651E-01 3.9974E+01 1.4950E-15
Ranking 3 10 7 6 12 8 4 2 5 9 11 1
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 21 of 42

Table 5. Cont.

Comparative Algorithms
Measure
SSA WOA SCA DA GWO PSO ALO MPA EO AO GOA IGOA
F19
Max −3.8572E+00 −3.0723E+00 −3.8398E+00 −3.6103E+00 −3.8549E+00 −3.5817E+00 −3.8596E+00 −3.0898E+00 −3.8609E+00 −3.7221E+00 −3.8227E+00 −3.8628E+00
Mean −3.8596E+00 −3.2723E+00 −3.8494E+00 −3.7415E+00 −3.8601E+00 −3.7763E+00 −3.8610E+00 −3.6695E+00 −3.8623E+00 −3.7943E+00 −3.8444E+00 −3.8628E+00
Min −3.8627E+00 −3.8468E+00 −3.8573E+00 −3.8471E+00 −3.8628E+00 −3.8468E+00 −3.8628E+00 −3.8628E+00 −3.8628E+00 −3.8522E+00 −3.8587E+00 −3.8628E+00
Std 2.5466E-03 3.8304E-01 7.7153E-03 1.1360E-01 3.6683E-03 1.2987E-01 1.3784E-03 3.8651E-01 9.5396E-04 6.3004E-02 1.5338E-02 4.4409E-16
Ranking 5 12 6 10 4 9 3 11 2 8 7 1
F20
Max −3.1979E+00 −1.7529E+00 −1.2348E+00 −3.1440E+00 −2.2762E+00 −3.2031E+00 −2.5329E+00 −3.3220E+00 −3.2030E+00 −2.5225E+00 −2.6051E+00 −3.3220E+00
Mean −3.2609E+00 −2.7847E+00 −2.2059E+00 −3.1943E+00 −2.9987E+00 −3.2328E+00 −2.7032E+00 −3.3220E+00 −3.2328E+00 −2.8380E+00 −2.8984E+00 −3.3220E+00
Min −3.3220E+00 −3.1841E+00 −3.0581E+00 −3.3162E+00 −3.3219E+00 −3.3220E+00 −2.8814E+00 −3.3220E+00 −3.3220E+00 −3.1264E+00 −3.0035E+00 −3.3220E+00
Std 7.0573E-02 6.8900E-01 9.4395E-01 8.1983E-02 4.8517E-01 5.9447E-02 1.6440E-01 4.0937E-10 5.9494E-02 2.6187E-01 1.9564E-01 1.7172E-10
Ranking 3 10 12 6 7 4 11 2 5 9 8 1
F21
Max −2.6305E+00 −4.8157E+00 −3.5065E-01 −5.0500E+00 −5.0966E+00 −2.6829E+00 −2.6305E+00 −4.9540E+00 −8.8199E-01 −9.2575E+00 −1.5798E+00 −1.0153E+01
Mean −7.0094E+00 −4.8932E+00 −7.5598E-01 −6.8195E+00 −8.8813E+00 −8.0375E+00 −5.7235E+00 −8.0029E+00 −4.0233E+00 −9.7647E+00 −2.4100E+00 −1.0153E+01
Min −1.0153E+01 −5.0032E+00 −1.3155E+00 −8.6125E+00 -1.0150E+01 −1.0153E+01 −1.0153E+01 −9.9566E+00 −5.1007E+00 -1.0152E+01 −3.5016E+00 −1.0153E+01
Std 3.7676E+00 7.9719E-02 4.3024E-01 2.0287E+00 2.5232E+00 3.6003E+00 3.1666E+00 2.2399E+00 2.0943E+00 4.3512E-01 8.3575E-01 1.3286E-08
Ranking 6 9 12 7 3 4 8 5 10 2 11 1
F22
Max −2.7519E+00 −9.0585E-01 −9.0510E-01 −1.8369E+00 −1.0393E+01 −1.8376E+00 −5.1288E+00 −5.0801E+00 −5.0877E+00 −5.0645E+00 −1.2329E+00 −1.0403E+01
Mean −6.8205E+00 −5.1360E+00 −1.4838E+00 −3.3195E+00 −1.0399E+01 −4.4431E+00 −9.0844E+00 −8.7305E+00 −6.4165E+00 −9.0095E+00 −2.1487E+00 −1.0403E+01
Min −1.0403E+01 −1.0235E+01 −2.4565E+00 −5.0164E+00 −1.0403E+01 −1.0403E+01 −1.0403E+01 −1.0272E+01 −1.0403E+01 −1.0399E+01 −3.0909E+00 −1.0403E+01
Std 4.1556E+00 3.8525E+00 7.4057E-01 1.3673E+00 4.3456E-03 3.9973E+00 2.6371E+00 2.4694E+00 2.6576E+00 2.6311E+00 8.0696E-01 1.5991E-08
Ranking 6 8 12 10 2 9 3 5 7 4 11 1
F23
Max −2.8711E+00 −2.2850E+00 −1.8691E+00 −1.8570E+00 −5.0079E+00 −2.8711E+00 −2.4217E+00 −3.8354E+00 −3.8354E+00 −1.0183E+01 −3.4634E+00 −1.0522E+01
Mean −7.2799E+00 −3.8940E+00 −2.0020E+00 −4.1990E+00 −7.5155E+00 −6.9448E+00 −4.4504E+00 −8.8612E+00 −7.1852E+00 −1.0361E+01 −5.1392E+00 −1.0526E+01
Min −1.0536E+01 −5.0669E+00 −2.0959E+00 −1.0215E+01 −1.0019E+01 −1.0536E+01 −1.0536E+01 −1.0536E+01 −1.0536E+01 −1.0515E+01 −8.7041E+00 −1.0532E+01
Std 3.8762E+00 1.3956E+00 1.1257E-01 4.0177E+00 2.8379E+00 4.1658E+00 4.0573E+00 3.3505E+00 3.8680E+00 1.3645E-01 2.4546E+00 4.4536E-03
Ranking 5 11 12 10 4 7 9 3 6 2 8 1
Friedman test
Mean Rank 3.91 8.09 8.27 7.55 5.09 7.09 6.00 3.73 5.18 6.00 9.00 1.00
Final Ranking 3 10 11 9 4 8 6 2 5 6 12 1
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 22 of 42

Table 6. The results of the Wilcoxon ranking test of the comparative methods using 23 classical benchmark functions.

Comparative Algorithms
Measure
SSA WOA SCA DA GWO PSO ALO MPA EO AO GOA
F1
p-value 2.7661E-02 3.5541E-02 3.5559E-01 5.8221E-03 1.6699E-02 3.0216E-02 4.3554E-02 3.0643E-02 3.5536E-02 3.5201E-01 3.5592E-01
Sign 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
F2
p-value 1.1761E-02 2.9581E-01 1.0812E-02 2.3280E-02 1.3734E-01 1.8648E-02 4.1002E-02 2.6155E-02 3.2647E-02 3.2957E-02 3.5592E-02
Sign 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
F3
p-value 1.2074E-02 1.2344E-02 1.3234E-02 1.8078E-02 1.6370E-01 4.6919E-02 2.2403E-03 3.1094E-01 1.2106E-02 3.5592E-02 3.5592E-02
Sign 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1
F4
p-value 7.8557E-02 8.7641E-02 1.1406E-02 1.7528E-02 2.0308E-01 2.7028E-03 6.1763E-04 2.4542E-02 2.6797E-01 3.4241E-01 3.5592E-01
Sign 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
F5
p-value 1.2113E-01 1.1615E-10 7.5441E-09 4.2798E-03 8.9790E-08 1.3920E-02 3.0048E-01 4.3146E-06 8.7920E-07 2.1946E-01 5.9453E-09
Sign 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1
F6
p-value 1.7828E-01 1.6523E-03 2.0092E-04 1.0725E-05 4.3337E-02 1.9479E-01 5.2165E-01 4.5575E-02 3.8125E-01 1.8377E-01 4.1149E-04
Sign 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
F7
p-value 2.7429E-04 3.3626E-01 1.3366E-02 4.0602E-02 8.9881E-03 3.8431E-02 1.6060E-02 2.9906E-02 1.2811E-01 8.4033E-01 6.5965E-02
Sign 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
F8
p-value 4.9287E-02 4.9287E-02 4.9286E-02 4.9286E-02 4.9287E-02 4.9285E-02 4.9286E-02 4.9288E-02 4.9287E-02 4.9287E-02 4.9286E-02
Sign 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
F9
p-value 1.2123E-03 3.5592E-01 3.4183E-01 3.6625E-05 3.7729E-02 1.5993E-02 5.6505E-04 3.5592E-01 2.0877E-01 3.5592E-01 1.2452E-02
Sign 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1
F10
p-value 1.5111E-02 1.3792E-02 3.5415E-02 7.5193E-03 2.3472E-02 3.4494E-01 3.4726E-05 2.4523E-03 1.4998E-01 3.8431E-02 7.5441E-09
Sign 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1
F11
p-value 6.7778E-04 1.0725E-05 1.6568E-02 7.3688E-03 3.1295E-03 4.5040E-02 7.2286E-02 3.5592E-01 1.9499E-01 4.3146E-06 3.5592E-01
Sign 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
F12
p-value 4.5898E-02 1.4565E-05 1.2774E-01 4.1330E-02 3.1982E-02 9.3609E-01 1.0150E-01 3.7499E-02 1.4498E-01 5.9953E-01 6.2976E-05
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 23 of 42

Table 6. Cont.

Comparative Algorithms
Measure
SSA WOA SCA DA GWO PSO ALO MPA EO AO GOA
Sign 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
F13
p-value 3.1619E-01 1.3697E-07 5.1562E-04 3.5354E-01 1.6561E-02 3.9124E-01 7.4624E-02 1.9893E-01 1.6070E-03 4.0685E-01 1.9106E-05
Sign 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
F14
p-value 2.0296E-02 7.3831E-01 3.3765E-02 2.9617E-02 2.9344E-02 1.4011E-02 3.2899E-02 1.7275E-02 8.9226E-01 4.6549E-02 3.3358E-02
Sign 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
F15
p-value 2.8670E-05 2.4533E-01 2.0663E-03 4.1099E-02 4.6384E-02 4.0643E-02 9.3738E-02 1.3982E-01 9.3964E-03 3.5181E-01 1.5768E-02
Sign 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1
F16
p-value 2.2168E-01 2.2493E-01 3.9237E-01 4.9464E-02 2.2172E-01 2.2168E-01 2.2168E-01 2.2168E-01 2.2168E-01 2.1779E-02 2.2188E-01
Sign 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
F17
p-value 2.5376E-02 4.9263E-02 7.0800E-01 2.6141E-02 2.5417E-02 2.5376E-02 2.5376E-02 2.5376E-02 2.5376E-02 2.7835E-02 1.1982E-02
Sign 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
F18
p-value 3.3442E-02 1.3387E-02 3.7619E-02 3.6649E-01 2.0723E-02 3.3442E-02 3.3442E-02 3.3442E-02 3.3443E-02 4.4389E-02 3.2447E-02
Sign 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
F19
p-value 2.4717E-02 4.7013E-02 3.0434E-02 6.9990E-01 2.4501E-02 2.3149E-02 2.4026E-02 6.1910E-01 2.3379E-02 8.1141E-01 3.3805E-02
Sign 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1
F20
p-value 7.8799E-04 8.2574E-01 3.3926E-01 1.7493E-03 2.9256E-01 9.1595E-04 2.8465E-04 2.8465E-04 9.1707E-04 4.1671E-01 1.7737E-01
Sign 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
F21
p-value 6.6625E-03 3.2211E-02 7.1209E-04 4.6331E-02 6.2122E-01 9.8752E-01 2.8439E-02 1.0326E-02 4.0904E-02 1.7348E-01 3.3997E-03
Sign 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1
F22
p-value 4.5947E-01 1.6723E-02 1.3534E-03 8.6195E-03 2.2524E-01 1.1780E-02 8.5115E-01 2.2436E-02 2.4921E-02 1.8822E-02 2.2948E-03
Sign 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1
F23
p-value 9.2506E-01 6.1916E-02 8.1461E-03 2.2618E-01 4.8084E-02 8.2839E-01 2.6193E-02 5.6241E-01 2.8950E-02 2.2042E-02 2.5223E-02
Sign 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1
Total 16 14 17 19 16 16 15 15 14 11 17
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 24 of 42

Figure 7 shows the convergence behaviors of the comparative algorithms on classical

test functions (F1–F23), where the functions from 1–13 are fixed to 10 dimensions. These
figures illustrate the optimization process during the iterations. It is clear that the proposed
method finds the best solutions in all of the test cases, and it performs very well according to
its convergence curves. For example, in the first test case (F1), the proposed IGOA presents
good behavior through the optimization process. It had the best results in a smooth curve
and faster compared to all comparative methods. The proposed IGOA in F16 obtained
the best solution contrary to all comparison methods; the speed of the most significant
difference is apparent.

Figure 7. Cont.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 25 of 42

Figure 7. Convergence behaviors of the comparative algorithms on classical test functions (F1–F23).

Table 7 shows the results of the proposed IGOA compared to other comparative
methods using classical benchmark functions (F1–F13), where the dimension size is 50.
High-dimensional problems are used to validate the performance of the proposed IGOA
compared to other methods. The proposed IGOA obtained better results than other meth-
ods, except the F8, which brought the best results in all of the test cases. The performance
of the IGOA is excellent for solving high-dimensional problems. According to the FRT,
the IGOA ranked first, followed by AO, MPA, EO, WOA, GOA, GWO, PSO, SSA, SCA, DA,
and ALO. In Table 8, the results of the proposed IGOA compared to other comparative
methods are presented using classical benchmark functions (F1–F13), where the dimension
size is 100. Moreover, the proposed IGOA had the best results in all of the test cases, and it
recorded the new best results in some cases. According to the FRT, the IGOA ranked first,
followed by AO, MPA, WOA, EO, GOA, GWO, PSO, ALO, SSA, and SCA.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 26 of 42

Table 7. The results of the proposed IGOA and other comparative methods using classical benchmark functions (F1–F13), where the dimension size is 50.

Comparative Algorithms
Measure
SSA WOA SCA DA GWO PSO ALO MPA EO AO GOA IGOA
F1
Max 1.6218E+04 2.1984E-21 5.5910E+03 1.6915E+04 1.2783E-06 1.8019E+02 2.8149E+04 3.6023E-23 1.3670E-13 5.3554E-79 6.6370E-03 1.5722E-79
Mean 1.1851E+04 5.4959E-22 2.4330E+03 1.1095E+04 6.6143E-07 8.8624E+01 2.1047E+04 1.1866E-23 4.4250E-14 1.3389E-79 3.1433E-03 3.9304E-80
Min 6.9875E+03 4.3444E-35 9.0817E+02 4.7960E+03 2.2679E-07 3.1343E+01 1.4298E+04 1.5924E-24 4.0144E-16 1.0172E-86 5.1212E-05 2.7584E-106
Std 3.8851E+03 1.0992E-21 2.1585E+03 5.0664E+03 4.8487E-07 6.3910E+01 6.5360E+03 1.6212E-23 6.3336E-14 2.6777E-79 3.4204E-03 7.8608E-80
Ranking 11 4 9 10 6 8 12 3 5 2 7 1
F2
Max 1.4023E+05 6.2386E-23 7.3347E+00 1.5847E+02 2.6315E-04 5.9956E+01 2.0823E+02 5.0305E-13 8.1913E-09 1.4280E-39 9.0945E-42 4.7159E-42
Mean 4.9211E+04 1.5787E-23 4.5222E+00 1.1268E+02 1.3932E-04 3.9135E+01 1.6509E+02 1.7435E-13 5.4547E-09 4.1641E-40 2.2736E-42 1.2189E-42
Min 1.3926E+02 4.2176E-30 6.1124E-01 6.7739E+01 4.5768E-05 2.2800E+01 7.3738E+01 2.9129E-14 2.6583E-09 1.1092E-42 4.7221E-59 1.8606E-51
Std 6.6198E+04 3.1067E-23 3.0088E+00 4.3988E+01 9.3082E-05 1.5398E+01 6.3429E+01 2.2192E-13 2.2952E-09 6.7921E-40 4.5473E-42 2.3326E-42
Ranking 12 4 8 10 7 9 11 5 6 3 2 1
F3
Max 6.5413E+04 6.8367E+05 1.0594E+05 2.4096E+05 1.7714E+03 1.4516E+04 1.5527E+05 1.9532E+00 6.2031E+01 1.0137E-76 4.8398E-01 3.9901E-84
Mean 5.8588E+04 4.5196E+05 7.2010E+04 1.8319E+05 8.7469E+02 1.0734E+04 1.2098E+05 6.1570E-01 1.7256E+01 2.5343E-77 2.4046E-01 9.9751E-85
Min 5.1191E+04 1.8831E+05 4.2268E+04 1.1646E+05 1.4849E+02 8.7526E+03 1.0824E+05 5.9612E-04 1.3599E-02 8.5573E-100 1.4096E-01 1.5318E-116
Std 6.2005E+03 2.3483E+05 3.3319E+04 5.1089E+04 6.8684E+02 2.6554E+03 2.2920E+04 9.2270E-01 2.9999E+01 5.0687E-77 1.6308E-01 1.9950E-84
Ranking 8 12 9 11 6 7 10 4 5 2 3 1
F4
Max 6.8899E+01 9.1800E+01 8.6073E+01 9.1337E+01 6.4686E+00 2.6396E+01 6.6814E+01 7.2917E-09 1.7832E-03 1.7153E-40 7.7673E-02 5.5416E-47
Mean 6.3772E+01 7.8942E+01 8.1343E+01 5.4232E+01 4.5319E+00 2.4381E+01 5.5044E+01 3.3935E-09 7.1452E-04 4.2899E-41 7.2182E-02 1.4531E-47
Min 6.0251E+01 4.1870E+01 7.4059E+01 2.3414E+01 2.8701E+00 2.2176E+01 4.2960E+01 1.6458E-09 2.1465E-04 2.7587E-52 6.7869E-02 2.8523E-65
Std 3.6504E+00 2.4719E+01 5.2408E+00 2.8233E+01 1.7816E+00 1.7632E+00 1.0941E+01 2.6186E-09 7.2951E-04 8.5756E-41 4.1536E-03 2.7287E-47
Ranking 10 11 12 8 6 7 9 3 4 2 5 1
F5
Max 1.1466E+07 4.8878E+01 2.5207E+07 2.0836E+07 4.8797E+01 6.0770E+04 3.2361E+07 4.8543E+01 4.8836E+01 9.2352E-01 4.8946E+01 7.5327E-02
Mean 8.1869E+06 4.8787E+01 1.4245E+07 1.1847E+07 4.8365E+01 3.2787E+04 2.1723E+07 4.8080E+01 4.8736E+01 2.6935E-01 4.8824E+01 2.3955E-02
Min 4.7476E+06 4.8704E+01 1.8179E+05 3.5789E+06 4.7957E+01 7.7683E+03 9.9082E+06 4.7882E+01 4.8561E+01 9.5134E-04 4.8635E+01 2.7754E-04
Std 3.1123E+06 8.7276E-02 1.1337E+07 7.0631E+06 4.0259E-01 2.6510E+04 1.1468E+07 3.1421E-01 1.2161E-01 4.3930E-01 1.4145E-01 3.5332E-02
Ranking 9 6 11 10 4 8 12 3 5 2 7 1
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 27 of 42

Table 7. Cont.

Comparative Algorithms
Measure
SSA WOA SCA DA GWO PSO ALO MPA EO AO GOA IGOA
F6
Max 1.9156E+04 8.1525E+00 7.6716E+03 2.0207E+04 8.4984E+00 1.2644E+02 2.4720E+04 3.9668E+00 6.4815E+00 1.2152E-02 9.1091E+00 1.0081E-01
Mean 1.2957E+04 7.3447E+00 3.6820E+03 1.5112E+04 7.6074E+00 9.2171E+01 1.9583E+04 3.6884E+00 6.0817E+00 3.7421E-03 8.7934E+00 4.2876E-02
Min 1.0247E+04 6.2648E+00 6.0131E+02 4.7529E+03 7.0766E+00 4.9020E+01 1.4009E+04 3.3131E+00 5.8648E+00 3.6313E-07 8.0696E+00 2.7665E-03
Std 4.1735E+03 7.8671E-01 2.9352E+03 7.0247E+03 6.2472E-01 3.2030E+01 4.5631E+03 2.8150E-01 2.7298E-01 5.6647E-03 4.8543E-01 4.1387E-02
Ranking 10 5 9 11 6 8 12 3 4 1 7 2
F7
Max 2.9031E+01 3.1956E-02 9.8864E+00 2.2178E+01 3.0870E-02 4.9951E+02 3.9801E+01 3.1534E-03 1.7831E-02 8.0405E-04 1.2233E-03 6.5384E-04
Mean 1.6099E+01 1.6597E-02 4.9402E+00 1.4279E+01 1.7940E-02 1.8972E+02 2.6277E+01 2.3485E-03 9.1412E-03 3.8734E-04 6.6861E-04 3.0638E-04
Min 8.8668E+00 8.2613E-04 1.0335E+00 5.3067E+00 8.2160E-03 4.6662E+01 8.5259E+00 1.8104E-03 4.3024E-03 1.0980E-04 1.3892E-04 4.0132E-05
Std 8.8703E+00 1.6283E-02 3.6637E+00 7.6343E+00 1.0628E-02 2.0972E+02 1.3917E+01 5.8897E-04 6.3451E-03 2.9642E-04 4.8153E-04 2.6922E-04
Ranking 10 6 8 9 7 12 11 4 5 2 3 1
F8
Max −8.7775E+03 −1.3214E+04 −3.8859E+03 −3.8665E+03 −7.1314E+03 −2.7860E+03 −9.0295E+03 −1.0965E+04 −9.4877E+03 −4.1272E+03 −5.6384E+03 −2.7814E+06
Mean −9.4181E+03 −1.7744E+04 −4.1214E+03 −4.6595E+03 −8.3000E+03 −4.1270E+03 −9.0295E+03 −1.1250E+04 −1.0613E+04 −4.7543E+03 −6.0615E+03 −1.9399E+09
Min −1.0788E+04 −2.0805E+04 −4.3281E+03 −6.2820E+03 −9.1511E+03 −5.2134E+03 −9.0295E+03 −1.1795E+04 −1.2302E+04 −6.1055E+03 −6.6070E+03 −5.7275E+09
Std 9.2277E+02 3.6361E+03 1.9671E+02 1.1238E+03 9.8483E+02 1.0172E+03 0.0000E+00 3.7047E+02 1.1959E+03 9.1748E+02 4.6042E+02 2.6775E+09
Ranking 5 2 12 10 7 11 6 3 4 9 8 1
F9
Max 4.0940E+02 6.7153E-07 2.2995E+02 6.3180E+02 2.1152E+01 4.0120E+02 3.6963E+02 0.0000E+00 2.8863E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00
Mean 3.8197E+02 1.6788E-07 1.4151E+02 5.6403E+02 9.0516E+00 3.5740E+02 3.3235E+02 0.0000E+00 7.2156E-01 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00
Min 3.6797E+02 0.0000E+00 4.2817E+01 5.1762E+02 1.6947E+00 3.3564E+02 3.0105E+02 0.0000E+00 5.6843E-13 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00
Std 1.9120E+01 3.3576E-07 7.7491E+01 4.8844E+01 8.4071E+00 2.9652E+01 3.3984E+01 0.0000E+00 1.4431E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00
Ranking 11 5 8 12 7 10 9 1 6 1 1 1
F10
Max 1.9306E+01 6.9722E-13 2.0650E+01 1.9961E+01 3.4051E-04 6.9781E+00 1.8075E+01 5.3024E-13 2.0638E-08 8.8818E-16 1.3498E-08 8.8818E-16
Mean 1.8195E+01 1.8741E-13 1.8678E+01 1.7540E+01 2.0529E-04 5.4526E+00 7.9782E+00 3.7126E-13 1.1748E-08 8.8818E-16 3.3745E-09 8.8818E-16
Min 1.7747E+01 4.4409E-15 1.2972E+01 1.6521E+01 6.9576E-05 4.3857E+00 8.8818E-16 2.2116E-13 4.6971E-09 8.8818E-16 8.8818E-16 8.8818E-16
Std 7.4469E-01 3.4025E-13 3.8039E+00 1.6273E+00 1.2266E-04 1.1117E+00 8.7915E+00 1.3779E-13 6.6047E-09 0.0000E+00 6.7490E-09 0.0000E+00
Ranking 11 3 12 10 7 8 9 4 6 1 5 1
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 28 of 42

Table 7. Cont.

Comparative Algorithms
Measure
SSA WOA SCA DA GWO PSO ALO MPA EO AO GOA IGOA
F11
Max 1.7362E+02 1.1102E-16 1.0601E+01 4.3677E+02 7.4534E-02 1.9413E+02 3.1461E+02 0.0000E+00 1.0418E-02 0.0000E+00 3.4754E+02 0.0000E+00
Mean 1.2334E+02 5.5511E-17 6.9297E+00 2.3595E+02 1.8637E-02 1.3345E+02 1.9353E+02 0.0000E+00 2.6046E-03 0.0000E+00 2.1478E+02 0.0000E+00
Min 9.4444E+01 0.0000E+00 1.2481E+00 1.1602E+02 4.0480E-07 1.0472E+02 9.0246E+01 0.0000E+00 1.9984E-15 0.0000E+00 1.2010E+02 0.0000E+00
Std 3.4603E+01 6.4099E-17 4.2980E+00 1.4060E+02 3.7264E-02 4.2027E+01 9.7164E+01 0.0000E+00 5.2092E-03 0.0000E+00 9.6724E+01 0.0000E+00
Ranking 8 4 7 12 6 9 10 1 5 1 11 1
F12
Max 6.6041E+06 7.6181E-01 1.7325E+08 2.9504E+06 8.7300E-01 1.2819E+01 2.4959E+07 2.8493E-01 4.6137E-01 7.7594E-05 9.6619E-01 5.2576E-05
Mean 4.7716E+06 6.7329E-01 8.5889E+07 1.3861E+06 5.2826E-01 8.2059E+00 9.8564E+06 2.0643E-01 3.9241E-01 3.0632E-05 9.3607E-01 2.1443E-05
Min 7.2951E+05 4.2717E-01 5.0216E+07 6.7839E+05 4.0129E-01 3.6242E+00 1.9815E+06 1.1744E-01 3.2544E-01 1.9160E-06 9.0405E-01 3.9386E-07
Std 2.7700E+06 1.6419E-01 5.8718E+07 1.0568E+06 2.2999E-01 4.0047E+00 1.0301E+07 6.8716E-02 6.0555E-02 3.2779E-05 2.8743E-02 2.5393E-05
Ranking 10 6 12 9 5 8 11 3 4 2 7 1
F13
Max 1.8640E+08 4.0618E+00 3.5703E+08 5.1925E+07 4.5126E+00 9.2536E+01 1.3806E+08 4.6401E+00 3.9209E+00 7.1058E-03 5.0124E+00 5.0486E-04
Mean 7.4528E+07 3.2654E+00 1.3817E+08 2.0251E+07 4.1590E+00 7.7931E+01 9.0749E+07 4.1691E+00 3.6951E+00 3.4706E-03 4.9641E+00 1.9322E-04
Min 2.7158E+07 2.5325E+00 3.4788E+06 7.2943E+06 3.7958E+00 3.5409E+01 6.6837E+07 3.7053E+00 3.4860E+00 3.5106E-04 4.9044E+00 3.0919E-05
Std 7.5206E+07 8.1278E-01 1.6310E+08 2.1185E+07 3.3293E-01 2.8350E+01 3.3005E+07 3.8267E-01 1.7869E-01 2.9141E-03 5.0203E-02 2.1632E-04
Ranking 10 3 12 9 5 8 11 6 4 2 7 1
Friedman test
Mean Rank 9.62 5.46 9.92 10.08 6.08 8.69 10.23 3.31 4.85 2.31 5.62 1.08
Final Ranking 9 5 10 11 7 8 12 3 4 2 6 1
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 29 of 42

Table 8. The results of the proposed IGOA and other comparative methods using classical benchmark functions (F1–F13), where the dimension size is 100.

Comparative Algorithms
Measure
SSA WOA SCA DA GWO PSO ALO MPA EO AO GOA IGOA
F1
Max 6.4450E+04 2.2100E-25 1.8971E+04 6.1119E+04 1.9274E-03 2.6248E+03 1.0401E+05 2.1620E-21 1.7958E-11 4.7366E-83 6.4311E-02 3.2757E-97
Mean 5.8329E+04 6.0754E-26 1.5087E+04 3.0927E+04 1.2495E-03 1.8935E+03 8.6209E+04 8.2788E-22 8.9226E-12 1.1847E-83 4.5752E-02 8.1893E-98
Min 4.6369E+04 6.0190E-30 1.0715E+04 7.4207E+03 8.4757E-04 1.2104E+03 5.7437E+04 5.0547E-23 8.6992E-13 3.0147E-93 3.5219E-02 4.1461E-126
Std 8.2402E+03 1.0732E-25 4.0115E+03 2.3071E+04 4.9092E-04 6.0029E+02 2.0334E+04 9.2942E-22 9.1868E-12 2.3680E-83 1.3744E-02 1.6379E-97
Ranking 11 3 9 10 6 8 12 4 5 2 7 1
F2
Max 1.1688E+25 3.4538E-23 4.4337E+01 3.2154E+02 7.1401E-03 2.2877E+02 4.8464E+02 7.1408E-13 9.6007E-08 1.0283E-44 1.4934E-12 7.6707E-49
Mean 2.9221E+24 8.6966E-24 3.5901E+01 2.8186E+02 4.9435E-03 1.9384E+02 4.0496E+02 3.6888E-13 6.5048E-08 3.7138E-45 4.0823E-13 1.9177E-49
Min 3.6567E+07 4.6747E-27 2.3812E+01 2.0375E+02 3.8459E-03 1.5887E+02 2.2760E+02 1.6618E-13 5.5969E-09 5.0295E-54 5.8608E-24 2.8573E-57
Std 5.8441E+24 1.7228E-23 9.0612E+00 5.3474E+01 1.5476E-03 3.1984E+01 1.1956E+02 2.4632E-13 4.1719E-08 4.5717E-45 7.2438E-13 3.8354E-49
Ranking 12 3 8 10 7 9 11 4 6 2 5 1
F3
Max 3.0940E+05 2.9857E+06 4.5705E+05 7.2240E+05 2.6564E+04 9.1971E+04 5.1265E+05 1.6998E+02 1.3121E+04 9.4571E-79 2.1274E+00 9.9554E-97
Mean 2.3669E+05 1.7822E+06 2.9752E+05 6.5700E+05 1.9553E+04 8.5210E+04 4.3074E+05 5.5700E+01 4.8385E+03 2.3644E-79 8.8560E-01 5.5818E-97
Min 1.6464E+05 9.4484E+05 2.0399E+05 5.8488E+05 1.2861E+04 7.6831E+04 3.9466E+05 2.5961E-01 9.3275E+01 3.7128E-93 3.2007E-01 4.0772E-112
Std 6.7513E+04 9.2686E+05 1.1076E+05 6.5245E+04 6.5376E+03 6.8786E+03 5.5000E+04 7.7934E+01 6.1542E+03 4.7284E-79 8.4679E-01 4.1342E-97
Ranking 8 12 9 11 6 7 10 4 5 2 3 1
F4
Max 8.9996E+01 9.5933E+01 9.7350E+01 9.0926E+01 3.6873E+01 4.2037E+01 9.2671E+01 7.6362E-08 4.6973E+00 4.0962E-40 1.3932E-01 5.7872E-40
Mean 8.1540E+01 8.5303E+01 9.5168E+01 7.3538E+01 3.0380E+01 3.8428E+01 7.3165E+01 3.6609E-08 1.3036E+00 1.0252E-40 1.1315E-01 1.4468E-40
Min 7.1679E+01 6.9219E+01 9.2087E+01 5.7173E+01 2.7215E+01 3.6876E+01 5.9800E+01 9.5124E-09 1.5244E-02 9.4961E-61 8.1765E-02 7.0045E-51
Std 7.5223E+00 1.1439E+01 2.2576E+00 1.5401E+01 4.4120E+00 2.4303E+00 1.4777E+01 2.8403E-08 2.2658E+00 2.0473E-40 2.7412E-02 2.8936E-40
Ranking 10 11 12 9 6 7 8 3 5 1 4 2
F5
Max 1.3626E+08 9.8819E+01 2.9568E+08 1.6827E+08 9.9508E+01 2.3804E+06 2.1146E+08 9.8561E+01 9.8782E+01 1.2431E+00 9.9003E+01 1.0128E+00
Mean 1.1233E+08 9.8685E+01 1.8065E+08 1.3770E+08 9.8798E+01 1.6261E+06 1.3225E+08 9.8410E+01 9.8675E+01 6.8750E-01 9.8967E+01 2.5496E-01
Min 9.6365E+07 9.8552E+01 1.0803E+08 9.1133E+07 9.7860E+01 1.1455E+06 7.1318E+07 9.7992E+01 9.8452E+01 2.2469E-01 9.8940E+01 7.9814E-04
Std 1.7408E+07 1.1599E-01 8.7119E+07 3.6996E+07 6.8924E-01 5.3146E+05 5.8216E+07 2.7899E-01 1.5157E-01 4.5514E-01 2.7347E-02 5.0525E-01
Ranking 9 5 12 11 6 8 10 3 4 2 7 1
F6
Max 8.9225E+04 1.7458E+01 4.4523E+04 4.8419E+04 1.8732E+01 4.5079E+03 1.1998E+05 1.5020E+01 1.8757E+01 4.8547E-02 2.0854E+01 9.9236E-02
Mean 6.7793E+04 1.5675E+01 2.2272E+04 3.1812E+04 1.7622E+01 2.3132E+03 8.8804E+04 1.4006E+01 1.7521E+01 1.4148E-02 2.0176E+01 3.3483E-02
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 30 of 42

Table 8. Cont.

Comparative Algorithms
Measure
SSA WOA SCA DA GWO PSO ALO MPA EO AO GOA IGOA
Min 5.0618E+04 1.4788E+01 5.6090E+03 1.7590E+04 1.6555E+01 8.9842E+02 5.7004E+04 1.2863E+01 1.5730E+01 4.5258E-06 1.9503E+01 2.3732E-03
Std 1.6012E+04 1.2371E+00 1.8107E+04 1.4850E+04 8.8996E-01 1.5634E+03 3.2783E+04 9.4087E-01 1.3357E+00 2.3070E-02 6.8445E-01 4.4461E-02
Ranking 11 4 9 10 6 8 12 3 5 1 7 2
F7
Max 2.7204E+02 1.8463E-02 3.9305E+02 3.0559E+02 1.0116E-01 2.0273E+03 2.0268E+02 4.6610E-03 1.1035E-02 1.8323E-03 8.5588E-04 1.0198E-03
Mean 1.4734E+02 9.5542E-03 1.6825E+02 1.9049E+02 5.8300E-02 1.7556E+03 1.3493E+02 2.3908E-03 8.0461E-03 8.9543E-04 5.3393E-04 3.7064E-04
Min 7.9767E+01 6.0216E-03 7.5642E+01 1.0019E+02 2.5231E-02 1.4554E+03 5.2479E+01 1.5111E-03 6.0757E-03 6.8527E-06 1.7860E-05 2.0470E-05
Std 8.6798E+01 5.9534E-03 1.5044E+02 8.9961E+01 3.5648E-02 2.5530E+02 6.5760E+01 1.5163E-03 2.2743E-03 8.5082E-04 3.6001E-04 4.6821E-04
Ranking 9 6 10 11 7 12 8 4 5 3 2 1
F8
Max −1.3646E+04 −2.1492E+04 −5.3732E+03 −6.6223E+03 −1.1677E+04 −5.1598E+03 −1.8059E+04 −1.6364E+04 −1.4114E+04 −4.9756E+03 −7.1045E+03 −4.9875E+06
Mean −1.5292E+04 −2.7471E+04 −5.9623E+03 −7.6416E+03 −1.3239E+04 −5.9618E+03 −1.8059E+04 −1.8456E+04 −1.7127E+04 -6.9425E+03 −7.5314E+03 −1.1856E+11
Min −1.6871E+04 −3.7725E+04 −6.2835E+03 −8.9144E+03 −1.4785E+04 −7.7160E+03 −1.8059E+04 −2.0714E+04 −2.1019E+04 −8.8904E+03 −8.5248E+03 −4.7145E+11
Std 1.3184E+03 7.0723E+03 4.0828E+02 1.0152E+03 1.3767E+03 1.1981E+03 0.0000E+00 1.9681E+03 3.0433E+03 1.7483E+03 6.7273E+02 2.3526E+11
Ranking 6 2 11 8 7 12 4 3 5 10 9 1
F9
Max 9.9339E+02 0.0000E+00 4.8313E+02 1.1884E+03 9.8581E+01 1.1115E+03 9.3285E+02 0.0000E+00 2.4728E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00
Mean 8.7313E+02 0.0000E+00 3.2001E+02 1.1454E+03 5.4544E+01 9.7640E+02 8.0171E+02 0.0000E+00 8.7120E-01 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00
Min 7.9510E+02 0.0000E+00 1.4363E+02 1.0557E+03 2.8686E+01 9.0364E+02 6.9063E+02 0.0000E+00 1.3642E-12 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00
Std 8.6539E+01 0.0000E+00 1.6490E+02 6.0815E+01 3.0661E+01 9.8033E+01 1.0578E+02 0.0000E+00 1.1695E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00
Ranking 10 1 8 12 7 11 9 1 6 1 1 1
F10
Max 1.9126E+01 3.5039E-12 2.0689E+01 1.9743E+01 6.6654E-03 1.0103E+01 1.8613E+01 2.2462E-12 2.5460E-07 4.4409E-15 4.8293E-03 8.8818E-16
Mean 1.8807E+01 9.2015E-13 2.0650E+01 1.6857E+01 4.6223E-03 9.7618E+00 9.3010E+00 1.7613E-12 1.4055E-07 1.7764E-15 2.4339E-03 8.8818E-16
Min 1.8189E+01 1.5099E-14 2.0599E+01 1.4417E+01 2.2334E-03 9.3897E+00 8.8818E-16 1.4539E-12 6.4001E-08 8.8818E-16 3.7348E-06 8.8818E-16
Std 4.1994E-01 1.7234E-12 3.7988E-02 2.5906E+00 2.0241E-03 3.1516E-01 1.0740E+01 3.4094E-13 8.0772E-08 1.7764E-15 2.2733E-03 0.0000E+00
Ranking 11 3 12 10 7 9 8 4 5 2 6 1
F11
Max 7.6438E+02 0.0000E+00 2.4170E+02 5.5599E+02 1.3725E-01 3.4697E+02 8.8736E+02 0.0000E+00 4.4995E-11 0.0000E+00 1.5563E+03 0.0000E+00
Mean 6.6258E+02 0.0000E+00 1.2059E+02 3.2260E+02 6.7813E-02 2.9022E+02 7.4397E+02 0.0000E+00 1.5632E-11 0.0000E+00 1.2242E+03 0.0000E+00
Min 5.0940E+02 0.0000E+00 6.7609E+01 9.6513E+01 3.6218E-04 2.6014E+02 4.8176E+02 0.0000E+00 3.2496E-13 0.0000E+00 9.8697E+02 0.0000E+00
Std 1.0973E+02 0.0000E+00 8.1316E+01 1.9609E+02 7.7747E-02 3.9246E+01 1.8275E+02 0.0000E+00 2.0097E-11 0.0000E+00 2.4182E+02 0.0000E+00
Ranking 10 1 7 9 6 8 11 1 5 1 12 1
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 31 of 42

Table 8. Cont.

Comparative Algorithms
Measure
SSA WOA SCA DA GWO PSO ALO MPA EO AO GOA IGOA
F12
Max 1.0867E+08 6.2302E-01 1.1473E+09 1.3795E+07 7.8790E-01 8.7761E+04 1.9343E+08 4.1403E-01 6.5971E-01 3.2853E-05 1.1572E+00 1.3334E-05
Mean 7.7271E+07 5.0075E-01 7.2816E+08 7.4978E+06 6.9134E-01 3.0279E+04 1.2189E+08 3.6533E-01 6.2007E-01 1.5033E-05 1.0648E+00 7.0284E-06
Min 5.3628E+07 2.8339E-01 2.5478E+08 2.0035E+06 5.7241E-01 1.1431E+03 4.8932E+07 3.3838E-01 5.4336E-01 1.5344E-06 1.0026E+00 7.4445E-09
Std 2.4450E+07 1.5492E-01 3.7221E+08 5.3527E+06 1.0843E-01 4.0208E+04 6.2288E+07 3.4113E-02 5.3034E-02 1.5254E-05 6.7986E-02 7.2560E-06
Ranking 10 4 12 9 6 8 11 3 5 2 7 1
F13
Max 6.1786E+08 9.3496E+00 1.0303E+09 5.1763E+08 1.0134E+01 9.1508E+05 7.5026E+08 9.7839E+00 9.2059E+00 4.2178E-02 1.0028E+01 2.5780E-02
Mean 3.3934E+08 8.5770E+00 8.8837E+08 2.0178E+08 9.4544E+00 4.9212E+05 4.8928E+08 9.6897E+00 8.9239E+00 1.1599E-02 9.9911E+00 7.5849E-03
Min 1.6900E+08 8.0494E+00 6.4915E+08 3.6750E+07 8.8932E+00 1.1739E+05 2.9431E+08 9.5922E+00 8.5903E+00 5.6404E-04 9.9129E+00 1.2093E-05
Std 1.9376E+08 5.5539E-01 1.7019E+08 2.1606E+08 5.2363E-01 3.3819E+05 2.0447E+08 1.0628E-01 2.6804E-01 2.0401E-02 5.3388E-02 1.2292E-02
Ranking 10 3 12 9 5 8 11 6 4 2 7 1
Friedman test
Mean Rank 9.77 4.46 10.08 9.92 6.31 8.85 9.62 3.31 5.00 2.38 5.92 1.15
Final Ranking 10 4 12 11 7 8 9 3 5 2 6 1
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 32 of 42

Figure 8 illustrates the convergence behaviors of the comparative algorithms on classi-

cal test functions (F1–F13) with higher dimensional sizes (i.e., 100). Obviously, the proposed
IGOA has the best solutions in all of the test high-dimensional problems, and it shows
promising behavior according to the given convergence curves. For example, in the third
test case (F3), the proposed IGOA shows stable and smooth convergence behavior through
the optimization rule. It is faster than all of the comparative methods in solving high-
dimensional problems.

Figure 8. Convergence behaviors of the comparative algorithms on classical test functions (F1–F13)
with higher dimensional sizes (i.e., 100).
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 33 of 42

Figure 9 shows the exploration and exploitation of the optimization processes. This
figure shows the division of the search tools and how to exploit them during the optimiza-
tion process, which indicates the distribution between the search tools of exploitation and
exploration; this enhances the ability of the proposed algorithm to find new solutions in
the available search space.

Figure 9. The exploration and exploitation of the optimization processes.

Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 34 of 42

5.2. Experiments Series 2: Advanced CEC2017 Benchmark Problems

In this section, the proposed IGOA is tested further using a set of 30 advanced CEC2017
benchmark functions.
The types and descriptions of the used CEC2017 benchmark functions are presented in
Table 9. The benchmark functions are unimodal (F1–F3) and multimodal (F4–F10), which
are shifted and rotated functions. Hybrid functions range from F11 to F20. Composition
functions range from F21 to F30. These functions are usually used to test the exploration and
exploitation search processes and their equilibrium. The primary setting of the experiment
in this section is the same as in the previous section.

Table 9. Description of CEC2017 functions.

No. Type Description Fi*

1 Unimodal functions SAR Bent Cigar Function 100
2 SAR Sum of Different Power Functions 200
3 SAR Zakharov Function 300
4 Simple Multimodal Functions SAR Rosenbrock’s Function 400
5 SAR Rastrigin’s Function 500
6 SAR Expanded Schaffer’s F6 Function 600
7 SAR Lunacek’s Bi-Rastrigin Function 700
8 SAR Non-Continuous Rastrigin’s Function 800
9 SAR Lévy Function 900
10 SAR Schwefel’s Function 1000
11 Hybrid functions HF1 (N = 3) 1100
12 HF2 (N = 3) 1200
13 HF3 (N = 3) 1300
14 HF4 (N = 4) 1400
15 HF5 (N = 4) 1500
16 HF6 (N = 4) 1600
17 HF6 (N = 5) 1700
18 HF6 (N = 5) 1800
19 HF6 (N = 5) 1900
20 HF6 (N = 6) 2000
21 Composition Functions CF1 (N = 3) 2100
22 CF2 (N = 3) 2200
23 CF3 (N = 4) 2300
24 CF4 (N = 4) 2400
25 CF5 (N = 5) 2500
26 CF6 (N = 5) 2600
27 CF7 (N = 6) 2700
28 CF8 (N = 6) 2800
29 CF9 (N = 3) 2900
30 CF10 (N = 3) 3000
Note: SAR = shifted and rotated, HF = hybrid function, CF = composition function.

The proposed IGOA is compared with other state-of-the-art methods using CEC2017,
including the dimension-decided Harris hawks optimization (GCHHO) [42], multi-strategy
mutative whale-inspired optimization (CCMWOA) [43], balanced whale optimization
algorithm (BMWOA) [18], reinforced whale optimizer (BWOA) [44], hybridizing sine–
cosine differential evolution (SCADE) [45], Cauchy and Gaussian sine–cosine algorithm
(CGSCA) [46], improved opposition-based sine–cosine optimizer (OBSCA) [47], hybrid grey
wolf differential evolution (HGWO) [48], mutation-driven salp chains-inspired optimizer
(CMSSA) [49], and dynamic Harris hawks optimization (DHHOM) [50].
The results of the proposed IGOA compared to other comparative state-of-the-art
methods are presented in Table 10 using 30 CEC2017 benchmark functions. This table
shows that the proposed IGOA method obtained perfect results compared to other methods.
In most of the best CEC2017 problems, the IGOA obtained better results and delivered
high-quality solutions to solve mathematical problems. FRT was conducted in Table 11 to
rank the comparative methods for solving the CEC2017 problems to support our claim.
In Table 11, the proposed IGOA is ranked first, followed by GCHHO, CMSSA, DHHOM,
HGWO, BMWOA, BWOA, CGSCA, OBSCA, SCADE, and CCMWOA. So, the obtained
results proved that the performance of the IGOA is promising compared to other compara-
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 35 of 42

tive methods. Since these mathematical problems are complex, it is challenging to reach the
optimal solutions for such problems. Since the proposed method obtained a set of optimal
solutions, this confirms its efficiency in solving complex and different CEC2017 problems,
improving its ability to avert from local optima and increase population diversity.

Table 10. The results of the proposed IGOA and other comparative methods using 30 CEC2017
benchmark functions.

Comparative Algorithms
Measure
GCHHO CCMWOA BMWOA BWOA SCADE CGSCA OBSCA HGWO CMSSA DHHOM IGOA
F1
Mean 3.30940E+03 2.02540E+10 2.37560E+08 1.57600E+08 2.01310E+10 1.42880E+10 1.67810E+10 8.13100E+09 1.35370E+09 1.34700E+07 3.25100E+03
Std 4.00990E+03 4.34540E+09 1.12730E+08 9.52730E+07 2.37100E+09 1.99070E+09 2.57230E+09 1.16330E+09 8.03300E+08 2.56170E+06 4.65850E+04
F2
Mean 1.42050E+06 7.75550E+37 2.63340E+22 1.86990E+26 1.55760E+36 1.78980E+35 3.60910E+35 1.18990E+34 7.57370E+31 7.66760E+15 1.32600E+03
Std 4.35570E+06 2.78850E+38 1.01970E+23 7.00190E+26 4.19900E+36 4.60380E+35 8.75620E+35 2.40170E+34 3.86780E+32 2.11000E+16 4.23561E+06
F3
Mean 5.72480E+02 7.75120E+04 6.95490E+04 5.78200E+04 5.93160E+04 4.18320E+04 6.17240E+04 7.78820E+04 5.91790E+04 1.54280E+04 5.72000E+02
Std 2.29300E+02 6.00500E+03 8.30380E+03 1.08020E+04 6.77840E+03 7.55140E+03 5.80660E+03 5.29540E+03 7.90900E+03 3.37440E+03 2.15410E+04
F4
Mean 4.92330E+02 3.37030E+03 6.13220E+02 6.11720E+02 3.69940E+03 1.71050E+03 2.67520E+03 8.98810E+02 6.97120E+02 5.38890E+02 4.93000E+02
Std 2.20920E+01 1.07380E+03 4.52740E+01 7.44420E+01 7.85300E+02 3.16700E+02 8.37710E+02 1.21710E+02 1.25430E+02 3.28540E+01 2.15000E+02
F5
Mean 7.16920E+02 8.35120E+02 7.94230E+02 7.67440E+02 8.28150E+02 7.89630E+02 8.06510E+02 7.50670E+02 7.16280E+02 7.35870E+02 7.15000E+02
Std 3.58460E+01 3.41570E+01 4.81890E+01 3.47290E+01 2.18030E+01 2.43770E+01 2.45210E+01 1.39620E+01 5.00250E+01 3.09490E+01 1.21456E+01
F6
Mean 6.52280E+02 6.68500E+02 6.64740E+02 6.67190E+02 6.60110E+02 6.54060E+02 6.57370E+02 6.37400E+02 6.52630E+02 6.62000E+02 6.37322E+02
Std 7.04260E+00 7.43640E+00 1.22790E+01 4.92080E+00 5.71150E+00 6.12160E+00 5.42690E+00 2.75530E+00 1.67270E+01 6.79720E+00 1.23549E+01
F7
Mean 1.07440E+03 1.28440E+03 1.18850E+03 1.23650E+03 1.17650E+03 1.14720E+03 1.17170E+03 1.03810E+03 9.80550E+02 1.23790E+03 9.80003E+02
Std 9.50300E+01 7.86780E+01 1.04810E+02 7.38450E+01 3.21420E+01 5.09880E+01 3.47780E+01 2.95840E+01 6.57600E+01 7.19790E+01 2.15648E+01
F8
Mean 9.51300E+02 1.05130E+03 1.01270E+03 9.77110E+02 1.08420E+03 1.05910E+03 1.06590E+03 1.00090E+03 9.89580E+02 9.53930E+02 9.50548E+02
Std 2.50210E+01 3.14490E+01 3.44830E+01 2.20290E+01 1.78760E+01 2.15500E+01 1.96760E+01 1.30390E+01 3.35310E+01 2.24990E+01 1.23684E+01
F9
Mean 4.99930E+03 7.99490E+03 7.26070E+03 6.21960E+03 8.16870E+03 6.13090E+03 6.89320E+03 3.48300E+03 4.79750E+03 7.15890E+03 3.48226E+03
Std 6.67700E+02 1.18910E+03 1.33260E+03 8.87330E+02 1.20850E+03 1.22730E+03 1.13440E+03 4.07920E+02 1.93030E+03 7.65270E+02 1.85667E+02
F10
Mean 4.93970E+03 7.11260E+03 7.41370E+03 6.54980E+03 8.23470E+03 8.14170E+03 7.36950E+03 6.65980E+03 6.29020E+03 5.52560E+03 4.93911E+03
Std 7.02370E+02 6.56310E+02 7.24060E+02 9.75090E+02 2.22270E+02 2.97070E+02 3.50750E+02 4.53880E+02 6.78770E+02 5.45470E+02 1.98266E+02
F11
Mean 1.22750E+03 3.51630E+03 1.63860E+03 1.74140E+03 3.43800E+03 2.24610E+03 2.69610E+03 5.03510E+03 2.11820E+03 1.25990E+03 1.22636E+03
Std 4.61680E+01 7.12600E+02 1.73870E+02 2.18240E+02 6.15770E+02 2.93550E+02 5.75960E+02 9.23410E+02 3.80140E+02 4.31720E+01 3.26710E+01
F12
Mean 1.18910E+06 2.18990E+09 7.96980E+07 1.34760E+08 1.92660E+09 1.43190E+09 2.04570E+09 5.89000E+08 1.78120E+08 1.54720E+07 1.18237E+06
Std 1.05870E+06 1.40780E+09 6.51450E+07 8.69410E+07 4.82420E+08 3.09240E+08 6.73740E+08 1.53340E+08 1.86560E+08 1.09180E+07 1.53623E+04
F13
Mean 1.51460E+04 8.10180E+07 3.16270E+05 2.49390E+05 6.42760E+08 5.11870E+08 6.32870E+08 3.06160E+08 7.74430E+05 4.53100E+05 1.51413E+04
Std 1.55350E+04 1.01880E+08 2.76180E+05 1.49100E+05 2.80990E+08 1.88770E+08 2.45500E+08 1.52570E+08 3.73460E+06 3.41790E+05 1.23633E+04
F14
Mean 4.37800E+04 1.36190E+06 4.51810E+05 9.58570E+05 3.42730E+05 1.83780E+05 2.12560E+05 7.58740E+05 3.33800E+05 1.26670E+05 4.36933E+04
Std 3.37360E+04 1.06020E+06 2.97310E+05 1.03090E+06 1.51470E+05 1.04920E+05 1.04490E+05 6.32210E+05 3.16240E+05 1.06830E+05 1.54932E+04
F15
Mean 7.98250E+03 6.08890E+06 8.76670E+04 1.20450E+05 8.49960E+06 1.02240E+07 1.38510E+07 1.27440E+07 2.58440E+04 6.76810E+04 7.98191E+03
Std 7.03540E+03 7.18430E+06 9.03590E+04 8.97940E+04 5.00020E+06 1.16050E+07 1.72250E+07 1.57900E+07 2.18710E+04 4.31430E+04 7.54535E+03
F16
Mean 2.75590E+03 3.82030E+03 3.29790E+03 3.67160E+03 3.91670E+03 3.76790E+03 3.84600E+03 3.29040E+03 3.18600E+03 3.27670E+03 2.75461E+03
Std 3.40700E+02 5.19220E+02 3.55500E+02 5.13770E+02 2.38250E+02 2.22570E+02 2.22620E+02 1.67740E+02 3.03380E+02 2.92610E+02 1.33951E+02
F17
Mean 2.32790E+03 2.74680E+03 2.37630E+03 2.60050E+03 2.52920E+03 2.46670E+03 2.60340E+03 2.41310E+03 2.38060E+03 2.61210E+03 2.32751E+03
Std 2.20580E+02 3.49430E+02 2.56110E+02 2.84310E+02 1.63110E+02 1.85890E+02 1.61410E+02 1.69650E+02 1.98150E+02 2.77480E+02 1.25317E+02
F18
Mean 2.25110E+05 8.74010E+06 2.91200E+06 3.17660E+06 3.73710E+06 3.13090E+06 4.22870E+06 1.46490E+06 2.46650E+06 1.09400E+06 2.25110E+05
Std 1.61650E+05 8.78500E+06 2.41540E+06 3.06640E+06 2.58540E+06 1.39660E+06 2.36190E+06 1.30980E+06 3.60400E+06 9.71750E+05 1.65429E+04
F19
Mean 6.63810E+03 5.12680E+06 7.74970E+05 3.48230E+06 2.33610E+07 2.46870E+07 4.16280E+07 1.38590E+07 6.29370E+06 4.04430E+05 6.63798E+03
Std 7.38500E+03 7.32160E+06 8.59610E+05 3.12020E+06 1.15100E+07 1.22460E+07 2.74960E+07 1.55780E+07 5.81650E+06 2.62140E+05 4.62325E+03
F20
Mean 2.56010E+03 2.70240E+03 2.76650E+03 2.79680E+03 2.74110E+03 2.62520E+03 2.70000E+03 2.65430E+03 2.60240E+03 2.71820E+03 2.55955E+03
Std 2.02220E+02 2.16930E+02 1.62670E+02 2.18290E+02 1.08830E+02 1.38560E+02 1.31380E+02 1.30220E+02 2.05090E+02 1.30250E+02 1.12149E+02
F21
Mean 2.48850E+03 2.61950E+03 2.53510E+03 2.57030E+03 2.57740E+03 2.56520E+03 2.44250E+03 2.50510E+03 2.46770E+03 2.55420E+03 2.48749E+03
Std 3.85930E+01 5.12580E+01 4.56750E+01 5.02670E+01 2.56880E+01 3.32110E+01 8.21800E+01 1.56890E+01 5.50670E+01 4.03780E+01 1.51456E+02
F22
Mean 4.62350E+03 7.04850E+03 5.53390E+03 6.18390E+03 4.59700E+03 3.93100E+03 4.11250E+03 3.23580E+03 2.94720E+03 6.79490E+03 2.94754E+03
Std 2.41780E+03 1.54310E+03 3.21560E+03 2.48410E+03 2.19660E+02 2.56550E+02 3.62170E+02 2.77220E+02 1.26680E+03 1.67410E+03 3.20515E+02
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 36 of 42

Table 10. Cont.

Comparative Algorithms
Measure
GCHHO CCMWOA BMWOA BWOA SCADE CGSCA OBSCA HGWO CMSSA DHHOM IGOA
F23
Mean 2.92700E+03 3.18090E+03 2.99450E+03 3.08030E+03 3.01140E+03 3.00190E+03 3.01420E+03 2.90250E+03 2.84090E+03 3.16020E+03 2.99325E+03
Std 7.37890E+01 1.18160E+02 8.17800E+01 1.07680E+02 3.48820E+01 3.15550E+01 4.54740E+01 1.68870E+01 6.23460E+01 1.38630E+02 2.35565E+02
F24
Mean 3.08380E+03 3.30380E+03 3.09670E+03 3.19780E+03 3.16640E+03 3.14920E+03 3.18440E+03 3.05480E+03 2.95410E+03 3.44050E+03 2.95326E+03
Std 5.04200E+01 1.16420E+02 7.36580E+01 8.09340E+01 3.72610E+01 2.53380E+01 3.43000E+01 2.60000E+01 3.86290E+01 1.45780E+02 3.52588E+01
F25
Mean 2.90010E+03 3.44510E+03 3.02210E+03 3.01640E+03 3.45100E+03 3.28120E+03 3.38280E+03 3.08930E+03 3.09440E+03 2.91640E+03 3.00055E+03
Std 1.49490E+01 1.41040E+02 3.39370E+01 4.69270E+01 9.77010E+01 1.02840E+02 1.57830E+02 3.12340E+01 5.98770E+01 2.30520E+01 1.22550E+01
F26
Mean 5.65890E+03 9.01340E+03 6.69870E+03 8.11220E+03 7.41680E+03 7.13610E+03 7.05350E+03 5.92290E+03 5.48950E+03 7.64800E+03 5.47518E+03
Std 1.72280E+03 1.03630E+03 9.25950E+02 7.67280E+02 2.41560E+02 3.74440E+02 5.36350E+02 4.49190E+02 1.27270E+03 1.08640E+03 4.52201E+02
F27
Mean 3.26360E+03 3.63050E+03 3.31650E+03 3.39200E+03 3.44060E+03 3.38790E+03 3.45800E+03 3.31450E+03 3.33700E+03 3.38570E+03 3.26194E+03
Std 2.42390E+01 1.79580E+02 7.97790E+01 8.83970E+01 5.54960E+01 4.08300E+01 5.42170E+01 2.33400E+01 8.83800E+01 9.26590E+01 5.66982E+01
F28
Mean 3.21950E+03 4.67320E+03 3.39180E+03 3.38910E+03 4.37540E+03 3.89120E+03 4.18740E+03 3.60200E+03 3.52070E+03 3.27420E+03 3.29525E+03
Std 2.31010E+01 4.05870E+02 4.45990E+01 4.22080E+01 2.39090E+02 1.21840E+02 1.91430E+02 4.75420E+01 1.14230E+02 2.25600E+01 2.35466E+01
F29
Mean 4.04170E+03 5.18310E+03 4.78350E+03 5.07360E+03 5.08210E+03 4.76980E+03 4.94150E+03 4.48290E+03 4.76470E+03 4.49320E+03 4.04055E+03
Std 2.30680E+02 4.91440E+02 4.43160E+02 5.09510E+02 2.77570E+02 2.08340E+02 2.10560E+02 1.72000E+02 4.50640E+02 3.90420E+02 2.35486E+02
F30
Mean 1.15970E+04 5.82960E+07 7.26090E+06 1.50610E+07 8.68650E+07 8.04480E+07 1.16700E+08 7.21540E+07 2.47330E+07 2.64540E+06 1.93215E+05
Std 4.23300E+03 5.37510E+07 5.42220E+06 1.03830E+07 3.83730E+07 2.22460E+07 4.32210E+07 3.48540E+07 2.61650E+07 1.50810E+06 6.45852E+05

Table 11. The results of the Friedman ranking test of the comparative methods using 30 CEC2017
benchmark functions.

Comparative Algorithms
Measure
GCHHO CCMWOA BMWOA BWOA SCADE CGSCA OBSCA HGWO CMSSA DHHOM IGOA
F1 2 11 5 4 10 8 9 7 6 3 1
F2 2 11 4 5 10 8 9 7 6 3 1
F3 2 10 9 5 7 4 8 11 6 3 1
F4 1 10 5 4 11 8 9 7 6 3 2
F5 3 11 8 6 10 7 9 5 2 4 1
F6 3 11 9 10 7 5 6 2 4 8 1
F7 4 11 8 9 7 5 6 3 2 10 1
F8 2 8 7 4 11 9 10 6 5 3 1
F9 4 10 9 6 11 5 7 2 3 8 1
F10 2 7 9 5 11 10 8 6 4 3 1
F11 2 10 4 5 9 7 8 11 6 3 1
F12 2 11 4 5 9 8 10 7 6 3 1
F13 2 7 4 3 11 9 10 8 6 5 1
F14 2 11 8 10 7 4 5 9 6 3 1
F15 2 7 5 6 8 9 11 10 3 4 1
F16 2 9 6 7 11 8 10 5 3 4 1
F17 2 11 3 8 7 6 9 5 4 10 1
F18 2 11 6 8 9 7 10 4 5 3 1
F19 2 6 4 5 9 10 11 8 7 3 1
F20 2 7 10 11 9 4 6 5 3 8 1
F21 4 11 6 9 10 8 1 5 2 7 3
F22 7 11 8 9 6 4 5 3 1 10 2
F23 3 11 5 9 7 6 8 2 1 10 4
F24 4 10 5 9 7 6 8 3 2 11 1
F25 1 10 5 4 11 8 9 6 7 2 3
F26 3 11 5 10 8 7 6 4 2 9 1
F27 2 11 4 8 9 7 10 3 5 6 1
F28 1 11 5 4 10 8 9 7 6 2 3
F29 2 11 7 9 10 6 8 3 5 4 1
F30 1 7 4 5 10 9 11 8 6 3 2
Summation 73 294 181 202 272 210 246 172 130 158 42
Mean Rank 2.4333 9.8 6.033 6.733 9.066 7.00 8.200 5.733 4.333 5.266 1.400
Final Ranking 2 11 6 7 10 8 9 5 3 4 1
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 37 of 42

5.3. Experiments Series 3: Data Clustering Problems

The proposed method was further tested on real-world problems (data clustering) to
prove its searchability.

5.3.1. Description of the Data Clustering Problem

Suppose we have a collection of objects (N) that has to be divided into predetermined
clusters (K). To reduce the Euclidean distance between the provided objects and the
centroids of the clusters, which refer to each specified item, the clustering procedure
allocates each object (O) to a specific cluster. Equation (28) is the distance metric used to
evaluate the similarity (connection) between data objects. The issue is primarily described
as follows:
N K
ED (O, Z ) = ∑ ∑ wij ||Oi − Zj ||2 (28)
i =1 j =1

where ||Oi − Zj || is the distance measure between the ith object (Oi ) and the jth cluster
centroid (Zj ). N is the number of given objects, and K is the number of clusters. wij is the
weight of the ith object (Oi ) associated with the jth cluster (Zj ), which is either 1 or 0.

5.3.2. Results of the Data Clustering Problems

This experiment tests the proposed IGOA using eight different UCI datasets, namely
Cancer, Vowels, CMC, Iris, Seeds, Glass, Heart, and Water. The details of these datasets are
presented in Table 12.

Table 12. UCI data clustering benchmark datasets.

Dataset Features No. Instances No. Classes No.

Cancer 9 683 2
CMC 10 1473 3
Glass 9 214 7
Iris 4 150 3
Seeds 7 210 3
Heart 13 270 2
Vowels 6 871 3
Water 13 178 3

Table 13 shows the obtained results by the proposed IGOA compared to other compar-
ative methods using various data clustering problems. It is clear from the results presented
in this table that the modification made in the proposed method effectively affected the
ability of the basic algorithm. This modification helped the proposed algorithm obtain
impressive results compared with the basic (and other) methods. The proposed method
had the best results in most cases, with a clear difference, as it received new results in some
cases. Thus, it was found that the proposed algorithm is able to deal with such complex
problems and solve them efficiently.
In Table 14, it was found that the proposed method obtained significantly better results
than the comparative methods according to the tests used. According to the Wilcoxon rank
test, it was found that the results were substantially better. The improvement rates were
significant, which indicates the ability of the proposed algorithm to solve such problems
more efficiently compared to others. Based on the Friedman ranking test examination in
Table 14, the proposed algorithm’s order is in the first place. The PSO algorithm is in second
place, the GWO algorithm is in third place, the AOA algorithm is in fourth place, the SCA
and RSA algorithms are in fifth place, and the GOA algorithm is in seventh place. Figure 10
indicates that the proposed algorithm is able to achieve results that exceed other algorithms
in most of the cases used in these experiments.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 38 of 42

Table 13. The obtained results by the comparative methods using the data clustering problems.

Comparative Algorithms
Dataset Metric
AOA PSO GWO SCA PDOA RSA GOA IGOA
Cancer Worst 3.34E+03 2.01E+03 2.95E+03 3.47E+03 3.50E+03 3.55E+03 3.48E+03 3.73E+02
Average 3.28E+03 1.12E+03 2.81E+03 3.16E+03 3.23E+03 3.38E+03 3.18E+03 2.49E+02
Best 3.19E+03 5.62E+02 2.48E+03 2.88E+03 3.06E+03 3.05E+03 2.94E+03 1.54E+02
STD 7.93E+01 5.98E+02 1.92E+02 2.85E+02 2.10E+02 1.90E+02 2.35E+02 9.07E+01
CMC Worst 3.33E+02 9.60E+01 3.11E+02 3.35E+02 3.35E+02 3.35E+02 3.35E+02 8.08E+01
Average 3.33E+02 8.95E+01 3.08E+02 3.33E+02 3.35E+02 3.34E+02 3.34E+02 7.76E+01
Best 3.32E+02 8.14E+01 3.01E+02 3.32E+02 3.34E+02 3.33E+02 3.32E+02 7.43E+01
STD 5.34E-01 6.48E+00 4.21E+00 9.86E-01 2.03E-01 8.63E-01 1.12E+00 2.77E+00
Glass Worst 3.48E+01 1.08E+01 3.07E+01 3.49E+01 3.52E+01 3.43E+01 3.51E+01 1.23E+00
Average 3.42E+01 6.40E+00 2.89E+01 3.44E+01 3.49E+01 3.37E+01 3.44E+01 7.67E-01
Best 3.36E+01 0.00E+00 2.74E+01 3.37E+01 3.44E+01 3.23E+01 3.37E+01 0.00E+00
STD 4.65E-01 4.20E+00 1.40E+00 4.16E-01 3.35E-01 8.74E-01 6.66E-01 4.62E-01
Iris Worst 2.39E+01 6.19E+00 1.66E+01 2.43E+01 2.47E+01 2.47E+01 2.48E+01 2.16E+00
Average 2.37E+01 4.48E+00 1.54E+01 2.37E+01 2.37E+01 2.40E+01 2.44E+01 1.60E+00
Best 2.33E+01 6.16E-01 1.42E+01 2.29E+01 2.27E+01 2.33E+01 2.39E+01 9.03E-01
STD 2.68E-01 2.23E+00 1.07E+00 5.47E-01 8.98E-01 5.31E-01 3.39E-01 5.38E-01
Seeds Worst 4.92E+01 1.96E+01 4.52E+01 5.02E+01 5.01E+01 5.06E+01 5.04E+01 6.65E+00
Average 4.86E+01 1.69E+01 3.89E+01 4.86E+01 4.92E+01 4.99E+01 4.97E+01 6.28E+00
Best 4.80E+01 1.56E+01 3.59E+01 4.74E+01 4.78E+01 4.84E+01 4.82E+01 5.95E+00
STD 5.41E-01 1.60E+00 3.65E+00 1.12E+00 9.53E-01 8.76E-01 9.81E-01 2.55E-01
Statlog (Heart) Worst 1.66E+03 4.06E+02 9.85E+02 1.69E+03 1.69E+03 1.67E+03 1.66E+03 3.53E+01
Average 1.58E+03 2.72E+02 9.14E+02 1.65E+03 1.59E+03 1.49E+03 1.60E+03 2.12E+01
Best 1.50E+03 7.35E+01 7.40E+02 1.61E+03 1.48E+03 1.39E+03 1.43E+03 0.00E+00
STD 6.06E+01 1.28E+02 1.01E+02 2.97E+01 7.84E+01 1.09E+02 9.47E+01 1.38E+01
Vowels Worst 1.53E+02 2.51E+01 1.53E+02 1.53E+02 1.53E+02 1.53E+02 1.53E+02 2.10E+01
Average 1.52E+02 2.05E+01 1.37E+02 1.53E+02 1.53E+02 1.52E+02 1.53E+02 1.97E+01
Best 1.52E+02 1.56E+01 1.28E+02 1.52E+02 1.53E+02 1.51E+02 1.52E+02 1.85E+01
STD 4.75E-01 5.43E+00 1.00E+01 2.97E-01 1.20E-01 4.95E-01 3.70E-01 1.04E+00
Water Worst 3.91E+03 1.66E+03 2.91E+03 4.02E+03 3.94E+03 3.91E+03 3.98E+03 3.63E+02
Average 3.87E+03 1.20E+03 2.52E+03 3.91E+03 3.87E+03 3.83E+03 3.84E+03 3.08E+02
Best 3.78E+03 8.05E+02 2.20E+03 3.79E+03 3.72E+03 3.77E+03 3.42E+03 2.48E+02
STD 5.49E+01 3.39E+02 3.29E+02 9.24E+01 9.02E+01 5.02E+01 2.31E+02 4.17E+01

Table 14. The statistical test using the p-value, Wilcoxon rank test, and Friedman ranking test.

Comparative Algorithms
Dataset Metric
AOA PSO GWO SCA PDOA RSA GOA IGOA
Cancer p-value 1.11E-11 0.012455 3.83E-09 2.12E-08 2.11E-09 7.38E-10 5.2E-09 1
h 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NaN
Rank 7 2 3 4 6 8 5 1
CMC p-value 4.01E-16 0.005429 9.41E-14 5.47E-16 3.34E-16 4.8E-16 6.09E-16 1
h 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NaN
Rank 4 2 3 5 8 7 6 1
Glass p-value 3.93E-14 0.017665 1.01E-10 2.43E-14 1.1E-14 1.19E-12 2.02E-13 1
h 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NaN
Rank 5 2 3 6 8 4 7 1
Iris p-value 5.39E-13 0.022566 5.6E-09 3.76E-12 4.45E-11 2.96E-12 6.55E-13 1
h 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NaN
Rank 4 2 3 5 6 7 8 1
Seeds p-value 2.85E-15 4.65E-07 4.18E-08 5.38E-13 1.39E-13 6.58E-14 1.58E-13 1
h 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NaN
Rank 5 2 3 4 6 8 7 1
Statlog (Heart) p-value 1.15E-11 0.00248 4.79E-08 4.89E-14 7.74E-11 1.68E-09 3.2E-10 1
h 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NaN
Rank 5 2 3 8 6 4 7 1
Vowels p-value 5.48E-17 0.965425 5.32E-09 3.43E-17 2.6E-17 5.98E-17 4E-17 1
h 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NaN
Rank 5 2 3 6 8 4 7 1
Water p-value 3.56E-14 0.000384 4.03E-07 7.09E-13 6.53E-13 2.47E-14 6.74E-10 1
h 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NaN
Rank 6 2 3 8 7 4 5 1
Mean Ranking 5.125 2.000 3.000 5.750 6.875 5.750 6.500 1.000
Final Ranking 4 2 3 5 8 5 7 1
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 39 of 42

Figure 10. The ranking of the tested methods for the data clustering problems.

6. Discussions
In the tests indicated above, the OL technique and RDR method were incorporated in
order to improve the performance of the original GOA method, and the improved resultant
IGOA was thoroughly examined. Using benchmark datasets for clustering, the effectiveness
of IGOA was evaluated.
We realize that the IGOA presents significantly superior outcomes for multi-dimensional
classical test problems than other well-known optimization algorithms through results in
earlier sections. The effectiveness of other algorithms significantly diminishes by expand-
ing the dimension space. The results revealed that the proposed IGOA can maintain the
equipoise between the exploratory and exploitative abilities on the problem’s nature with a
high-dimension space.
From the results of the F1–F13 classical test functions, one can see a clear significant
gap among the results of the comparative algorithms, with superior solutions obtained from
the proposed IGOA solution. As a result, the IGOA convergence speed is greatly improved.
This observation proves the superior exploitative qualities of the IGOA. According to
the obtained solution for multimodal and fixed dimensional multimodal functions, we
conclude that IGOA achieved superior solutions in most cases (and in competitive solutions
in some cases) according to the equilibrium between the explorative and exploitative
capabilities, as well as a smooth change among the searching methods.
In addition, the performance of IGOA was tested using 30 advanced CEC2017 bench-
mark functions for further judgment. In the first part, regarding CEC2017 unimodal
functions (F1–F3), IGOA has excellent results and optimization efficiency because the OL
and RDR strategies supplement the diversity of the solutions of the conventional GOA and
increase its likelihood of taking the local optimal section. In contrast, the DE has different
distribution properties that allow the conventional GOA to obtain a good stability point in
the search mechanisms (exploration and exploitation), increasing the optimizer’s accuracy.
The importance of the proposed method is further validated in the CEC2017 multi-
modal functions (F4–F10). First, it can be recognized that the IGOA strategies thoroughly
allow the search solutions at various regions to be determined. Then the data (from the so-
lutions’ positions) interact with each other. As a result, it is hard for the implied areas to be
trapped quickly. Furthermore, when the GOA is trapped with local optima, the stochastic
disturbance of the OL can dramatically improve the GOA and its search accuracy. Finally,
by combining the two strategies (OL and RDR) into the GOA, IGOA works well in the
multimodal functions.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 40 of 42

The combinations of CEC2017 unimodal and CEC2017 multimodal functions, called

hybrid functions (F11–F20), were used to analyze the accuracy of the proposed IGOA.
The RDR encourages the GOA to obtain the possibly optimal region faster. On the other
hand, the OL encourages the GOA to obtain a potentially more reliable solution in the
adjacent area. Nevertheless, due to the hardness of some problems, the combination of two
search strategies (RDR and OL) interacting together leads to good results.
CEC2017 composite functions (F21–F30) examine the proposed IGOA’s ability to
change between the search phases. Such benchmark analyses place more critical needs
on the optimization process. For example, the OL principally assists in enhancing the
ability in the exploration aspect, which enables IGOA to come near the better region quickly.
Contrarily, the RDR encourages determining a more suitable solution close to the current
best solution. However, the overall performance of IGOA was developed.
IGOA is shown to be highly effective since the precision of the final findings is
improved when compared to well-known cutting-edge methodologies in the literature.
IGOA’s efficacy is further demonstrated in clustering application challenges. Additionally,
it can be shown from the outcomes of the two clustering issues (data clustering) that IGOA
also performs remarkably well in locating ideal clusters and centroids.
To demonstrate its efficacy concerning convergence acceleration and optimization
accuracy, the suggested approach presents a better form of the GOA when compared with
well-known methods and state-of-the-art methods. When using the suggested IGOA to
solve actual clustering issues, whether they include data or text, we also compare it to
alternative optimization techniques. Researchers will understand how to implement the
suggested optimizer to minimize and maximize the costs of clustering applications as we
reduce the difficulties with data clustering and maximize the issues with text document
clustering. In essence, one may obtain managerial recommendations from this document.
An earlier subsection described this experimental configuration.

7. Conclusions and Future Works

An effective optimization technique is required to handle challenging problems and
identify the best solution. Optimization problems can take many different routes in a
variety of disciplines. It is challenging to solve several problems using the same approach
since the nature of these problems varies. One simple–global stochastic optimizer with
strong search capabilities is the GOA. However, the GOA is inadequate for multi-modality,
hybrid functions, and data mining.
To enhance the GOA and maintain diversity in solutions, the current article suggests
combining Rosenbrock’s direct rotational (RDR) technique with the orthogonal learning
(OL) method (IGOA). We carried out extensive tests based on several functions, includ-
ing 23 classical and IEEE CEC2017 challenges. Several other suggested meta-heuristic
algorithms were contrasted with the IGOA. To further confirm the effectiveness of the
proposed strategy, 8 data clustering issues collected from the UCI repository were tested.
The Wilcoxon signed-rank test also evaluated the experimental findings for a more orga-
nized data analysis. Other comparison optimizers could not compete with the IGOA’s
convergence speed and accuracy. The empirical results demonstrate that the suggested
IGOA outperformed different comparative approaches and the basic GOA regarding out-
comes and solution quality.
In future work, the proposed method can be improved using other search operators.
Moreover, the proposed method can be tested to solve other hard problems, such as text
clustering problems, scheduling problems, industrial engineering problems, advanced
mathematical problems, parameter extraction problems, forecasting problems, feature
selection problems, multi-objective problems, and others. Moreover, a deep investigation is
needed to determine the main reasons for the current weaknesses in some cases.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 41 of 42

Author Contributions: L.A.: conceptualization, supervision, methodology, formal analysis, re-

sources, data curation, writing—original draft preparation. A.D.: conceptualization, supervision,
writing—review and editing, project administration, funding acquisition. R.A.Z.: conceptualization,
writing—review and editing, supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available upon reasonable request
from the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Ibrahim, R.A.; Abd Elaziz, M.; Lu, S. Chaotic opposition-based grey-wolf optimization algorithm based on differential evolution
and disruption operator for global optimization. Expert Syst. Appl. 2018, 108, 1–27. [CrossRef]
2. Wang, S.; Hussien, A.G.; Jia, H.; Abualigah, L.; Zheng, R. Enhanced Remora Optimization Algorithm for Solving Constrained
Engineering Optimization Problems. Mathematics 2022, 10, 1696. [CrossRef]
3. Elaziz, M.A.; Abualigah, L.; Yousri, D.; Oliva, D.; Al-Qaness, M.A.; Nadimi-Shahraki, M.H.; Ewees, A.A.; Lu, S.; Ali Ibrahim, R.
Boosting atomic orbit search using dynamic-based learning for feature selection. Mathematics 2021, 9, 2786. [CrossRef]
4. Koziel, S.; Leifsson, L.; Yang, X.S. Solving Computationally Expensive Engineering Problems: Methods and Applications; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; Volume 97.
5. Baykasoglu, A. Design optimization with chaos embedded great deluge algorithm. Appl. Soft Comput. 2012, 12, 1055–1067.
[CrossRef]
6. Chen, H.; Wang, M.; Zhao, X. A multi-strategy enhanced Sine Cosine Algorithm for global optimization and constrained practical
engineering problems. Appl. Math. Comput. 2020, 369, 124872. [CrossRef]
7. Simpson, A.R.; Dandy, G.C.; Murphy, L.J. Genetic algorithms compared to other techniques for pipe optimization. J. Water Resour.
Plan. Manag. 1994, 120, 423–443. [CrossRef]
8. Rao, R.V.; Savsani, V.J.; Vakharia, D. Teaching–learning-based optimization: A novel method for constrained mechanical design
optimization problems. Comput. Aided Des. 2011, 43, 303–315. [CrossRef]
9. Liu, Q.; Li, N.; Jia, H.; Qi, Q.; Abualigah, L.; Liu, Y. A Hybrid Arithmetic Optimization and Golden Sine Algorithm for Solving
Industrial Engineering Design Problems. Mathematics 2022, 10, 1567. [CrossRef]
10. Droste, S.; Jansen, T.; Wegener, I. Upper and lower bounds for randomized search heuristics in black-box optimization. Theory
Comput. Syst. 2006, 39, 525–544. [CrossRef]
11. El Shinawi, A.; Ibrahim, R.A.; Abualigah, L.; Zelenakova, M.; Abd Elaziz, M. Enhanced adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system
using reptile search algorithm for relating swelling potentiality using index geotechnical properties: A case study at El Sherouk
City, Egypt. Mathematics 2021, 9, 3295. [CrossRef]
12. Attiya, I.; Abualigah, L.; Alshathri, S.; Elsadek, D.; Abd Elaziz, M. Dynamic Jellyfish Search Algorithm Based on Simulated
Annealing and Disruption Operators for Global Optimization with Applications to Cloud Task Scheduling. Mathematics 2022,
10, 1894. [CrossRef]
13. Nadimi-Shahraki, M.H.; Taghian, S.; Mirjalili, S.; Abualigah, L. Binary Aquila Optimizer for Selecting Effective Features from
Medical Data: A COVID-19 Case Study. Mathematics 2022, 10, 1929. [CrossRef]
14. Attiya, I.; Abualigah, L.; Elsadek, D.; Chelloug, S.A.; Abd Elaziz, M. An Intelligent Chimp Optimizer for Scheduling of IoT
Application Tasks in Fog Computing. Mathematics 2022, 10, 1100. [CrossRef]
15. Wen, C.; Jia, H.; Wu, D.; Rao, H.; Li, S.; Liu, Q.; Abualigah, L. Modified Remora Optimization Algorithm with Multistrategies for
Global Optimization Problem. Mathematics 2022, 10, 3604. [CrossRef]
16. Wolpert, D.H.; Macready, W.G. No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 1997, 1, 67–82. [CrossRef]
17. Xu, Y.; Chen, H.; Luo, J.; Zhang, Q.; Jiao, S.; Zhang, X. Enhanced Moth-flame optimizer with mutation strategy for global
optimization. Inf. Sci. 2019, 492, 181–203. [CrossRef]
18. Chen, H.; Xu, Y.; Wang, M.; Zhao, X. A balanced Whale Optimization Algorithm for constrained engineering design problems.
Appl. Math. Model. 2019, 71, 45–59. [CrossRef]
19. Miller, J.; Trümper, L.; Terboven, C.; Müller, M.S. A theoretical model for global optimization of parallel algorithms. Mathematics
2021, 9, 1685. [CrossRef]
20. Sayed, G.I.; Khoriba, G.; Haggag, M.H. A novel chaotic Salp Swarm Algorithm for global optimization and feature selection.
Appl. Intell. 2018, 48, 3462–3481. [CrossRef]
21. Gupta, S.; Deep, K. Improved Sine Cosine Algorithm with crossover scheme for global optimization. Knowl. Based Syst. 2019,
165, 374–406. [CrossRef]
22. Sun, Y.; Wang, X.; Chen, Y.; Liu, Z. A modified Whale Optimization Algorithm for large-scale global optimization problems.
Expert Syst. Appl. 2018, 114, 563–577. [CrossRef]
Mathematics 2022, 10, 4509 42 of 42

23. Agushaka, J.O.; Ezugwu, A.E.; Abualigah, L. Gazelle Optimization Algorithm: A novel nature-inspired metaheuristic optimizer.
Neural Comput. Appl. 2022, 4, 1–33. [CrossRef]
24. Haklı, H.; Uğuz, H. A novel particle swarm optimization algorithm with Lévy flight. Appl. Soft Comput. 2014, 23, 333–345.
[CrossRef]
25. Liu, Y.; Cao, B.; Li, H. Improving ant colony optimization algorithm with epsilon greedy and Lévy flight. Complex Intell. Syst.
2021, 7, 1711–1722. [CrossRef]
26. Gao, W.F.; Liu, S.Y.; Huang, L.L. A novel artificial bee colony algorithm based on modified search equation and orthogonal
learning. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 2013, 43, 1011–1024. [PubMed]
27. Hu, J.; Chen, H.; Heidari, A.A.; Wang, M.; Zhang, X.; Chen, Y.; Pan, Z. Orthogonal learning covariance matrix for defects of grey
wolf optimizer: Insights, balance, diversity, and feature selection. Knowl. Based Syst. 2021, 213, 106684. [CrossRef]
28. Rosenbrock, H. An automatic method for finding the greatest or least value of a function. Comput. J. 1960, 3, 175–184. [CrossRef]
29. Lewis, R.M.; Torczon, V.; Trosset, M.W. Direct search methods: Then and now. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2000, 124, 191–207.
[CrossRef]
30. Mirjalili, S.; Gandomi, A.H.; Mirjalili, S.Z.; Saremi, S.; Faris, H.; Mirjalili, S.M. Salp Swarm Algorithm: A bio-inspired optimizer
for engineering design problems. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2017, 114, 163–191. [CrossRef]
31. Mirjalili, S.; Lewis, A. The Whale Optimization Algorithm. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2016, 95, 51–67. [CrossRef]
32. Mirjalili, S. SCA: A Sine Cosine Algorithm for solving optimization problems. Knowl. Based Syst. 2016, 96, 120–133. [CrossRef]
33. Mirjalili, S. Dragonfly Algorithm: A new meta-heuristic optimization technique for solving single-objective, discrete, and
multi-objective problems. Neural Comput. Appl. 2016, 27, 1053–1073. [CrossRef]
34. Mirjalili, S.; Mirjalili, S.M.; Lewis, A. Grey Wolf Optimizer. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2014, 69, 46–61. [CrossRef]
35. Faramarzi, A.; Heidarinejad, M.; Stephens, B.; Mirjalili, S. Equilibrium Optimizer: A novel optimization algorithm. Knowl. Based
Syst. 2020, 191, 105190. [CrossRef]
36. Kennedy, J.; Eberhart, R. Particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of the ICNN’95-International Conference on Neural
Networks, Perth, WA, Australia, 27 November–1 December 1995; Volume 4, pp. 1942–1948.
37. Abualigah, L.; Yousri, D.; Abd Elaziz, M.; Ewees, A.A.; Al-qaness, M.A.; Gandomi, A.H. Aquila Optimizer: A novel meta-heuristic
optimization Algorithm. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2021, 157, 107250. [CrossRef]
38. Mirjalili, S. The Ant Lion Optimizer. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2015, 83, 80–98. [CrossRef]
39. Faramarzi, A.; Heidarinejad, M.; Mirjalili, S.; Gandomi, A.H. Marine Predators Algorithm: A nature-inspired metaheuristic.
Expert Syst. Appl. 2020, 152, 113377. [CrossRef]
40. Abd Elaziz, M.; Mirjalili, S. A hyper-heuristic for improving the initial population of whale optimization algorithm. Knowl. Based
Syst. 2019, 172, 42–63. [CrossRef]
41. Jouhari, H.; Lei, D.; AA Al-qaness, M.; Abd Elaziz, M.; Ewees, A.A.; Farouk, O. Sine-cosine algorithm to enhance simulated
annealing for unrelated parallel machine scheduling with setup times. Mathematics 2019, 7, 1120. [CrossRef]
42. Song, S.; Wang, P.; Heidari, A.A.; Wang, M.; Zhao, X.; Chen, H.; He, W.; Xu, S. Dimension decided Harris hawks optimization
with Gaussian mutation: Balance analysis and diversity patterns. Knowl. Based Syst. 2021, 215, 106425. [CrossRef]
43. Luo, J.; Chen, H.; Heidari, A.A.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Li, C. Multi-strategy boosted mutative whale-inspired optimization approaches.
Appl. Math. Model. 2019, 73, 109–123. [CrossRef]
44. Chen, H.; Yang, C.; Heidari, A.A.; Zhao, X. An efficient double adaptive random spare reinforced whale optimization algorithm.
Expert Syst. Appl. 2020, 154, 113018. [CrossRef]
45. Nenavath, H.; Jatoth, R.K. Hybridizing Sine Cosine Algorithm with differential evolution for global optimization and object
tracking. Appl. Soft Comput. 2018, 62, 1019–1043. [CrossRef]
46. Kumar, N.; Hussain, I.; Singh, B.; Panigrahi, B.K. Single sensor-based MPPT of partially shaded PV system for battery charging
by using cauchy and gaussian sine cosine optimization. IEEE Trans. Energy Convers. 2017, 32, 983–992. [CrossRef]
47. Abd Elaziz, M.; Oliva, D.; Xiong, S. An improved opposition-based Sine Cosine Algorithm for global optimization. Expert Syst.
Appl. 2017, 90, 484–500. [CrossRef]
48. Zhu, A.; Xu, C.; Li, Z.; Wu, J.; Liu, Z. Hybridizing grey wolf optimization with differential evolution for global optimization and
test scheduling for 3D stacked SoC. J. Syst. Eng. Electron. 2015, 26, 317–328. [CrossRef]
49. Zhang, Q.; Chen, H.; Heidari, A.A.; Zhao, X.; Xu, Y.; Wang, P.; Li, Y.; Li, C. Chaos-induced and mutation-driven schemes boosting
salp chains-inspired optimizers. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 31243–31261. [CrossRef]
50. Jia, H.; Lang, C.; Oliva, D.; Song, W.; Peng, X. Dynamic harris hawks optimization with mutation mechanism for satellite image
segmentation. Remote. Sens. 2019, 11, 1421. [CrossRef]