Artificial Intelligence Review (2024) 57:126

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-024-10747-w

A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective

optimization problems from 2019 to 2023

Rekha Rani1 · Sarika Jain1 · Harish Garg2

Accepted: 6 March 2024

© The Author(s) 2024

Abstract
The field of nature inspired algorithm (NIA) is a vital area of research that consistently aids
in solving optimization problems. One of the metaheuristic algorithm classifications that
has drawn attention from researchers in recent decades is NIA. It makes a significant con-
tribution by addressing numerous large-scale problems and achieving the best results. This
research aims to identify the optimal NIA for solving single-objective optimization prob-
lems. The NIA discovered between 2019 and 2023 is presented in this study with a brief
description. About 83 distinct NIAs have been studied in this study in order to address
the optimization issues. In order to accomplish this goal, we have taken into consideration
eight real-world single-objective optimization problems: the 3-bar truss design problem,
the rolling element bearing, the pressure vessel, the cantilever beam, the I beam, the design
of a welded beam, and the design of a spring. Based on a comparative study and biblio-
graphic analysis, we have determined that two algorithms—the flow direction algorithm,
and prairie dog optimization—give us the best results and optimal solutions for all eight of
the engineering problems listed. Lastly, some perspectives on the limitations, difficulties,
and future course are provided. In addition to providing future research guidelines, this will
assist the novice and emerging researcher in providing a more comprehensive perspective
on advanced NIA.

Keywords Optimization · Nature inspired algorithms · Real world optimization problem ·

Global search · Engineering design problems

* Sarika Jain
[email protected]
* Harish Garg
[email protected]
Rekha Rani
[email protected]
1
Department of Mathematics, Amity School of Applied Sciences, Amity University Haryana,
Gurugram, India
2
Department of Mathematics, Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology (Deemed
University), Patiala, Punjab 147004, India

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
126 Page 2 of 51 R. Rani et al.

Abbreviations
HHO Harris Hawks optimization
SFO Sailfish optimizer
PFA Pathfinder algorithm
SOA Seagull optimization algorithm
OBA Optimization booster algorithm
HGSO Henry gas solubility optimization
SLnO Sea lion optimization
NMR Naked mole-rat algorithm
NRO Nuclear reaction optimization
ASO Atom search optimization
SAR Search and rescue optimization
WHO Wildebeest herd optimization
BOA Butterfly optimization algorithm
BMA Blue monkey algorithm
EPC Emperor penguins colony optimizer
FSA Future search algorithm
ChOA Chimp optimization algorithm
SMA Slime MouldAlgorithm
GBO Gradient-based optimizer
MPA Marine predators algorithm
MOA Mayfly optimization algorithm
MRFO Manta ray foraging optimization
BOA Billiards-inspired optimization algorithm
EO Equilibrium optimizer
COA Coronavirus optimization algorithm
SSA Sparrow search algorithm
SOA Sandpiper optimization algorithm
BWO Black widow optimization algorithm
FBI Forensic-based investigation
BES Bald eagle search
LCBO Life choice-based optimization
SSD Social ski-driver optimization
AEO Artificial ecosystem-based optimization
HBO Heap-based optimizer
CHA Color harmony algorithm
SPO Stochastic paint optimizer
PO Political optimizer
WSA Water strider algorithm
NMA Newton metaheuristic algorithm
GPC Giza pyramids construction based optimizer
GSK Gaining sharing knowledge-based algorithm
AVOA African vulture’s optimization algorithm
ROA Remora optimization algorithm
CSA Chameleon swarm algorithm
GTO Artificial gorilla troops optimizer
CHIO Coronavirus herd immunity optimizer
FDA Flow direction algorithm
AO Aquila optimizer

13
A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective… Page 3 of 51 126

QANA Quantum-based avian navigation optimizer

AOS Atomic orbital search
AOA Arithmetic optimization algorithm
DOX Dingo optimizer
RCM Red Colobuses monkey
AOA Archimedes optimization algorithm
RSO Rat swarm optimizer
HGS Hunger games search
HOA Horse herd optimization algorithm
POA Preaching-inspired optimization algorithm
BRO Battle royale optimization algorithm
CMBO Cat and mouse based optimizer
TSO Tuna swarm optimization
PPF Past present future algorithm
AFO Aptenodytes forsteri optimization
LPB Learner performance-based behavior algorithm
MGA Material generation algorithm
CDDO Child drawing development optimization
BO Bonobo optimizer
RSA Reptile search algorithm
DTBO Driving training-based optimization
POA Pelicon optimization algorithm
CSBO Circulatory system based optimization
CO Cheetah optimizer
PDO Prairie dog optimization
GOA Gazelle optimization algorithm
MGO Mountain Gazelleoptimizer
CBOA Chef-based optimization algorithm
HPO Hunter-prey optimization
SFOA Sheep flock optimization algorithm
WHO Wild horse optimizer
PBSO Pair Barracuda swarm optimization
NMHK Nature-inspired Meta-heuristic knowledge-based
LSO Leopard seal optimization
RPO Red Piranha optimization
TBTD Three-bar truss design
TSD Tension/compression spring design
PVD Pressure vessel design
WBD Welded beam design
REB Rolling element bearing
IBD I beam design
CBD Cantilever beam problem
SRP Speed reducer problem

13
126 Page 4 of 51 R. Rani et al.

1 Introduction

The primary objective of optimization is to identify the best solution among all feasi-
ble solutions. It is one of the most crucial tools for decision-making and physical system
analysis. According to Hajipour et al. (2015), an optimization procedure is the process of
determining the best values for specific system characteristics in order to finish the system
design at the lowest possible cost. One way to achieve this is to convert the problem into a
mathematical model, which includes an objective function, maximization or minimization
and set of restrictions. The set of variables associated with the problems is the key role to
find the best objective among the different available resources. In the literature, there are
different categories associated with the nature of the objective problems such as continu-
ous versus discrete optimization, unconstrained versus constraint optimization, single and
multi-objective optimization, deterministic versus stochastic optimization, etc. Continuous
optimization problems are those that involve continuous variables; discrete optimization
problems are those that involve discrete variables; unconstrained optimization problems
are those that do not have any constraints; constraint optimization problems are those that
do. On the other hand, the optimization problems which contain only one objective are
called single objective problems while which contains more than one objective is called
many objective problems. Stochastic optimization refers for the use of randomness in the
objective function or optimization process. The classification of the different types of opti-
mization methods are summarized in Fig. 1 (Janga Reddy and Nagesh Kumar 2020).
Combinatorial optimization approaches are divided into two groups namely as exact and
approximate methods. An exact method is one that produces an optimal solution with pre-
cision, while an approximate method produces a solution that is close to the exact solution.
The dynamic programming and branch and bound method falls in the category of exact
method. Combinatorial optimization considers an optimal object selected from the finite
set, where the feasible solution set is either discrete or may be brought down to a discrete
set. On the other hand, there are two types of programming approaches for continuous opti-
mization problems: linear and nonlinear. Artificial intelligence and machine learning chal-
lenges and applications in the actual world are typically discrete, unconstrained, or discrete
in nature (Mou et al. 2023; Hajipour et al. 2014; Zhu et al. 2023). According to Reddy
and Kumar (2012), these conventional techniques might not be able to discover a work-
able solution for big nonlinear models. A non-linear and approximate method is divided
into two categories: local search, which finds the best solution from a particular area of
the search space, and global search, which finds the best solution from the entire search
space. The three components of the global search method are heuristic, metaheuristic and
random search. Heuristic algorithms are population-based algorithms that draw inspiration
from the phenomenon of biological or human intelligence. These algorithms will converge
to optimal solution or near to optimal solution. In random search (RS) methods, functions
may or may not be continuous and differentiable. Such optimization methods are also
known as derivative-free methods. Local search technique is divided into gradient-based
optimization and non-gradient-based optimization. Gradient based optimization presents a
powerful method if the objective function of an optimization problem is differentiable and
gradient information is consistent. If the objective function is differentiable but finding the
derivative is difficult then derivative free methods are extremely useful optimization tools.
All the above listed algorithms (traditional algorithms) are suffered from a number of
drawbacks, including convergent to local optima, an unidentified search space as well as
premature convergence (Shen et al. 2023). Furthermore, they only provide a single-based

13
A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective… Page 5 of 51 126

Optimization method

Combinatorial Continuous

Exact Approximate Non-linear Linear

Simplex method & its Interior point

Branch & Bound Dynamic
variants search
Programming

Global Search Local search

Heuristic Meta-heuristic (NIA) Random Gradient Without gradient

Single-solution based Population based

search search

Simulated Tabu search Geography Bio-inspired Physics based Chemical Human based
annealing based based

Small world Artificial Harmony

Evolutionary Swarm Plant based optimization chemical search,
intelligence algorithm, process,
Teaching
Water cycle Chemical learning based
Genetic algorithm, Tree
Particle swarm algorithm, reaction algorithm,
optimization, physiology
Differential optimization,
optimization, Ray Firework
evolution,
Firefly algorithm, optimization, Artificial algorithm,
... chemical
Evolution strategies,
Bee colony … reaction …
… optimization,
optimization,
…
…

..

.. …
Hybrid algorithm

Fig. 1  Classification of optimization methods

solution (Hashim et al. 2019). In recent years, researchers have been paying more attention
to metaheuristic algorithm which are inspired by nature to solve the complex optimiza-
tion problems and to address these issues (Cao et al. 2021; Li et al. 2023).Metaheuris-
tic algorithm has a great position in various field like science and engineering to solve
different type of optimization problems (Chen et al. 2023). Metaheuristics are one of the
well-known approaches for solving a number of complex real-world problem and multi-
objective optimization problems (Zhang et al. 2008; Xu et al. 2022; Cao et al. 2023). The
Greek terms “meta” and “heuristic” which mean “away from” and “to discover” respec-
tively, are combined to form the metaheuristic (Muazu et al. 2022). The meta heuristics is a
recurrent generation process carried out by collaboratively similar intelligent techniques to
explore the exploration space, learning rules used to assemble information to reach effec-
tively close to the optimal solutions. In many cases, the metaheuristics require less comput-
ing time to arrive the optimal or near to optimal solution that the other iterative techniques,
optimization algorithm and heuristic methods (Cao et al. 2020a). Metaheuristic algorithm

13
126 Page 6 of 51 R. Rani et al.

gives better outcomes as compared to traditional method for different type of problems
by inspiring congestion and evolutionary behavior of organism in the real world (Ghare-
hchopogh et al. 2023; Gharehchopogh and Ibrikci 2023).
Every metaheuristic NIA, based on multiple physical, biological and ethological issues
(Suman and Kumar 2006). Typically, these methods are discretized into two categories:
single solution-based algorithms and population-based metaheuristic. Single solution-
based NIA employes single candidate solution and refines its finding through the local
search. However, the outcome obtained from a single search solution could suffer from
premature convergence and stuck in local optima. Tabu search and Simulated Annealing
are the two well-known single-solution dependent metaheuristics. On the other hand, the
population-based NIA algorithm starts from the group of population from the search space
and find the optimal solution use exploration and exploitation phases. Such algorithms are
classified into four major categories, namely based on bio-inspired, physical, chemical and
social and human-thinking. Bio-inspired algorithms can be further subdivided into three
categories: evolutionary algorithm, swarm intelligence and plant-based algorithm. These
algorithms can be combined to increase the overall accuracy of the solution.
In literature, several kinds of nature-inspired algorithms were developed between 2019
and 2023 by the researchers to address the single-objective optimization problems. In this
present work, we examined 83 such algorithms and discussed their features and problem-
solving approach. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no research article has been pub-
lished that claims this specific algorithm is the most effective at solving the single objec-
tive optimization problems. In order to select the best algorithms among the 83 existing
NIAs, we have examined all such algorithms and taken into account the engineering design
optimization problems as a benchmark function to compare their performances.
The rest of the work is organized into six sections. An introduction is provided in
Sects. 1 and 2, a description of all existing 83 NIAs is provided. Section 3 give the differ-
ent structural engineering design problems and their solution by using existing NIAs. The
four best algorithms are identified and listed in this section too. In Sect. 4, we discussed the
performance of the four obtained best algorithms on the 13 new benchmark functions. In
Sect. 5, we conduct an experiment and results are presented through bibliographic analysis
to validate the result. Finally, conclusion and future research direction are listed in Sect. 6.

2 A cyclopedia of NIA

This section aims to provide summarizing information about the earlier surveys on NIA
discovered between 2019 to 2023.The list of the NIA discovered in this period is reported
in Table 1. Along with algorithm and author name few remarks are also given in Table 1
which gives the source of inspiration of all newly developed algorithms. Each algorithm
has initially worked on some benchmark problems for validation then thereafter few engi-
neering problems have been solved using these algorithms. In the last column, we also
have mentioned a list of those engineering problems.
Along with developing new algorithms, few researchers also have written review papers
in between 2019 to 2023 and the details of them is mentioned in Table 2.
A large number of new NIA algorithms have been developed by the researchers between
2019 and 2023. To demonstrate the superiority of their algorithms over others, researchers
have employed benchmark functions and variety of engineering design problems. To the

13
 Table 1  List of NIA discovered from 2019 to 2023
S.no. Name of Author name Remarks Problems
the algo-
rithm

1 HHO Heidari et al. (2019) HHO is motivated by the chasing style and cooperative TBTD, TSD, PVD, WBD, MDCB, REB, benchmark
activities by the hawks functions
2 SFO Shadravan et al. (2019) SFO is encouraged by the hunting selfish group. SFO IBD, WBD, TBTD, Benchmark functions
contains two type of population, selfish population to
increase the best search and modify the search space
of the population of crowd. SFO technique outper-
form for non-separable, non-convex and scalable test
functions
3 PFA Yapici and Cetinkaya (2019) PFA is stimulated by the cooperative behavior of TSD, WBD, PVD, CBD and Benchmark functions
animals in exploration of food. PFA was discovered to
solve multi objective problems. PFA display very com-
bative result related to famous NIA such as particle
swarm optimization
A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective…

4 SOA Dhiman and Kumar (2019) SOA is motivated by repositioning and aggressive PVD, SRP, WBD, TSD, REB and Benchmark functions
behavior of seagull in nature. The behavior of seagull
is modeled mathematically and applied to highlight
exploitation and exploration in a specified search
space. Investigational results find that SOA method is
useful to solve extensive optimization difficulty and is
extremely competitive to other famous NIA
5 OBA Pakzad-Moghaddam et al. (2019) OBA is enthused by human intelligence along with PVD, WBD and benchmark functions
to boost the business in exchange market. The main
objective in replace market is to raise the profit
ultimately
6 HGSO Hashim et al. (2019) HGSO algorithm is stimulated by the assemble actions WBD, TSD, SRP, benchmark functions
of gas to steadiness investigation and management in
Page 7 of 51

the explore space to stay away from local optima. The

experimental results revealed that HGSO is useful to
solve large scale optimization problems
126

13
 Table 1  (continued)
126

S.no. Name of Author name Remarks Problems

the algo-

13
rithm

7 SLnO Masadeh et al. (2019) SLnO method is inspired by the confine activities of Benchmark functions
Page 8 of 51

sea lions in environment. Furthermore, it is motivated

from sea lions’ stubble to get the quarry
8 NMR Salgotra and Singh (2019) This NMR algorithm is encouraged by the copulating Benchmark functions
process of NMRs in natural world. Two categories of
NMRs are used to characterize these patterns called
breeders and worker
9 NRO Wei et al. (2019) NRO is enthused by the NR procedure and contain of WBD, PVD and TSD, benchmark functions
two steps, namely, a nuclear fusion (NFu) step and a
nuclear fission (NFi) step
10 ASO Zhao et al. (2019) ASO is stimulated by fundamental molecular dynam-
ics. It is urbanized to identify a dissimilar location of
optimization difficulty. Mathematical models of ASO
stimulate the movement of atomic model in nature.
ASO is simple and effortlessly applied
11 SAR Shabani et al. (2019) SAR was discovered for solving one objective continu- IBD, CBD and benchmark functions
ous problems of optimization. SAR is stirred by the
explorations accepted out by humans during investiga-
tion and rescue operations
12 WHO Amali and Dinakaran (2019) WHO is encouraged by the herding behavior of Wilde- Benchmark functions
beest. WHO algorithm outperforms on large search
range problems and high dimensional problems
13 BOA Arora and Singh (2019) BOA is motivated by the mating and butterflies behavior SRP, WBD and benchmark functions
for food search, to solve large scale problems of opti-
mization. The structure is motivated by the foraging
approach of butterflies, which consume their intel-
ligence of smell to identify the position of mating or
nectar co-worker
R. Rani et al.
 Table 1  (continued)
S.no. Name of Author name Remarks Problems
the algo-
rithm

14 BMA Mahmood and Al-Khateeb (2019) BMA is encouraged by the presentation of blue monkey Benchmark functions
crowd in nature. This algorithm is well-organized in
field of dissolving real problems with boundaries and
mysterious search space
15 EPC Harifi et al. (2019) EPC method is encouraged from the performance of Benchmark functions
emperor penguins. This algorithm is proscribed by the
heat of the body waves of the penguins and curved-
like faction of them in their settlement
16 FSA Elsisi (2019) FSA is inspired by the person’s life. Inhabitants in the Benchmark functions
world investigate for the best life. If some person
initiates that his life is not good quality, he tries to
modify it and he imitates the victorious persons. This
algorithm is converted into mathematical equations
A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective…

according to this behavior

17 ChOA Khishe and Mosavi (2020) Entity cleverness and sensual stimulus of chimps in
their crowd hunting is the main inspiration of ChOA,
which is not same from the additional common animal
of prey
18 SMA Li et al. (2023) SMA is motivated from the fluctuation style by the slime WBD, PVD, CBD, and IBD, Benchmark functions
mould in natural world
19 GBO Ahmadianfar et al. (2020) GBO is encouraged by the Newton’s method based on SRP, TBTD, IBD, CBD, REB, TSD, Benchmark func-
the gradient, utilize two major machinist: gradient tions
search rule (GSR) and local escaping operator (LEO)
and vectors set to travel around the investigate space
Page 9 of 51
126

13
 Table 1  (continued)
126

S.no. Name of Author name Remarks Problems

the algo-

13
rithm

20 MPA Faramarzi et al. (2020a, b) MPA is motivated by the common foraging approach PVD, WBD, and TSD, benchmark functions
specifically enlist and tectonic activities in marine
Page 10 of 51

predators alongside with optimal bump into rate

approach in biological contact between marauder and
prey
21 MOA Zervoudakis and Tsafarakis (2020) MOA mimic the voyage activities and the mating course Benchmark functions
of action of mayflies. MOA is the mixture of most
imperative benefit by swarm intelligence and evolu-
tionary algorithm
22 MRFO Zhao et al. (2020a, b) Intellectual behavior of manta rays is the main inspira- TSD, PVD, WBD, SRP, REB and benchmark functions
tion of MRFO. MRFO used three distinct foraging
policies of manta rays, together with, cyclone foraging,
somersault foraging and chain foraging, to advance an
well-organize optimization representation for discover
the answer of dissimilar optimization problems
23 BOA Kaveh et al. (2020a, b, c) BOA method inspired by the billiards game. Every WBD, PVD, TSD, CBD and benchmark functions
candidate is identified like a billiards ball of multi-
dimensional and the most excellent solution is known
as a patch
24 EO Faramarzi et al. (2020a, b) EO is stimulated by manage mass volume balance PVD, WBD, TSD, benchmark functions
models utilized to estimation both equilibrium and
dynamic state. Each candidate performs as a search
mediator in EO
25 COA Martínez-Álvarez et al. (2020) COA mimics the strategy of corona virus increment and
infection of the healthy people
26 SSA Xue and Shen (2020) SSA is motivated from the group intelligence, foraging SRD and benchmark functions
and conservation activities of sparrows
R. Rani et al.
 Table 1  (continued)
S.no. Name of Author name Remarks Problems
the algo-
rithm

27 SOA Kaur et al. (2020) SOA is encouraged from the resettlement and striking PVD, SRP, WBD, TSD, REB and benchmark functions
activities by the sandpipers
28 BWO Hayyolalam and Kazem (2020) BWO is enthused from the distinctive coupling perfor- PVD, WBD, and TSD, benchmark functions
mance by the black widow spiders. BWO is helpful to
solve non linearand continuous optimization problems
29 FBI Chou and Nguyen (2020) FBI is motivated from the guess inquiry spot recognition Benchmark functions
procedure that is worn by police force. FBI is an easily
operated algorithm that requires unarranged operating
parameters
30 BES Alsattar et al. (2020) BES is influenced from the hunting approach or sharp Benchmark functions
collective actions by the bald eagles like they investi-
gate for prey
31 LCBO Khatri et al. (2020) LCBO mimics the distinctive judgment-making capabil- PVD, CBD and benchmark functions
A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective…

ity of human being to reach their target while erudition

from associate members. LCBO is a future optimiza-
tion technique for solving engineering problems
32 SSD Tharwat and Gabel (2020) This algorithm is motivated from distinct evolutionary
algorithms which are applied to enhance the frame-
work of support vector machines (SVMs), to improve
the categorization performance
33 AEO Zhao et al. (2020a, b) AEO is an inhabitants-based optimization technique WBD, TBTD, TSD, CBD, PVD, SRP, REB and bench-
stimulated by the energy flow in an environment and mark functions
AEO is inspired by the three distinctive behaviors of
critter as well as construction, utilization, and decom-
position
Page 11 of 51
126

13
 Table 1  (continued)
126

S.no. Name of Author name Remarks Problems

the algo-

13
rithm

34 HBO Askari et al. (2020a, b) HBO is encouraged by a set of inhabitants running for SRP, REB and benchmark functions
a frequent aim but may not complete their aim except
Page 12 of 51

they assemble themselves within a sequence called

commercial Rank Hierarchy (CRH)
35 CHA Zaeimi and Ghoddosian (2020) CHA is proposed for finding the solution for global opti- Benchmark functions
mization problems. CHA represents it’s investigation
performance between integrating colors of harmonic
depending upon their comparative positions in the
region of the shade disk in the munsell shade arrange-
ment and harmonic device
36 SPO Kaveh et al. (2020a, b, c) SPO is a inhabitants-based optimization technique which Benchmark functions
is motivated by the painting art and the colors beauty
37 PO Askari et al. (2020a, b) PO is moved by the multi-step course of politics. PO is WBD, SRP, PVD, TSD and benchmark functions
uniform to function changing and act constantly for
multi dimensional investigation spaces
38 WSA Kaveh et al. (2020a, b, c) WSA is motivated by the self-protective behavior, intel- WBD, TBTD, CBD and benchmark functions
ligent flow conveying, feeding, coupling style appara-
tus, and progression of water voyager insects
39 NMA Gholizadeh et al. (2020) NMA was discovered to solve isolated act based
tectonic design of steel substance stands. The Newton
method, as its updating method is utilized in NMA for
population-based structure. So, it is named NMA
40 GPC Harifi et al. (2021) GPC is motivated by the past of the ancient. GPC has Benchmark functions
the distinctiveness of a good quality metaheuristic
technique to contract through various issues. GPC is
useful for find the solution of multi dimensional prob-
lems, mostly image segmentation problem
R. Rani et al.
 Table 1  (continued)
S.no. Name of Author name Remarks Problems
the algo-
rithm

41 GSK Mohamed et al. (2021) GSK is useful for continuous optimization difficulty. Benchmark functions
GSK technique mimics the procedure of sharing and
gaining information throughout the individual life
period. GSK is capable of solving high dimensional
optimization problem
42 AVOA Abdollahzadeh et al. (2021a, b) AVOA is encouraged by African vultures’ way of life. TBTD, WBD, PVD, TSD, REB and benchmark functions
AVOA simulates African vultures’ foraging and map-
reading behaviors
43 ROA Jia et al. (2021) The idea for ROA is primarily due to the bloodsucking IBD, WBD, PVD, TBTD, REB, benchmark functions
behavior of remora. ROA is more trending to give a
new proposal for memetic algorithm
44 CSA Braik (2021) CSA is revealed for global mathematical optimization WBD, PVD, TSD, SRP, REB, benchmark functions
difficulty. CSA is motivated by the activities of chame-
A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective…

leons when hunting and navigating for ration origin on

plants, leave and close to morass
45 GTO Abdollahzadeh et al. (2021a, b) GTO is motivated by gorilla troops’ communal clever-
ness in natural world. In GTO gorillas’ cooperative
behavior is mathematically drawn and novel device are
intended to act exploitation and exploration
46 CHIO Al-Betar et al. (2021) CHIO mimic the herd immunity conception to deal Benchmark functions
with corona virus pandemic (COVID-19).CHIO is
motivated by herd immunity approach in addition to
the social idea
47 FDA Karami et al. (2021) FDA technique is based on physics. FDA technique is TBTD, TSD, SRP, WBD and benchmark functions
inspired by the flow pathway to the opening spot with
the buck tallness in a sewerage sink
Page 13 of 51

48 AO Abualigah et al. (2021a, b) AO method is stimulated by the behaviors of Aquila’s in TSD, PVD, WBD, TBTD, SRP, CBD, and benchmark
environment during contagious the prey functions
126

13
 Table 1  (continued)
126

S.no. Name of Author name Remarks Problems

the algo-

13
rithm

49 QANA Zamani et al. (2021) QANA is a novel differential evolution (DE) algorithm TSD, PVD, TBTD, WBD, benchmark functions
stimulated by the amazing correctness routing of
Page 14 of 51

wandering birds throughout extensive distance in flight

pathways
50 AOS Azizi (2021) AOS is inspired by the philosophy of quantum techni- SRP, PVD, WBD, TSD and benchmark functions
calities and the atomic model based on quantum to
which the common arrangement of electrons about
nucleus is within perception. AOS algorithm is capa-
ble to handling with the engineering and mathematical
problems
51 AOA Abualigah et al. (2021a, b) AOA is aggravated by the activities of the arithmetic WBD, TSD, PVD, TBTD, SRP and benchmark functions
operators of mathematics
52 DOX Bairwa et al. (2021) DOX mimic the social activities of dingoes. DOX is PVD, benchmark functions
inspired from the trapping actions by the dingoes that
contain investigation, encompassing, and management
53 RCM Al-Kubaisy et al. (2021) RCM is annoyed by the actions of red monkey in nature Benchmark functions
54 AOA Hashim et al. (2021) AOA is inspired from an Archimedes’ Principle of phys- WBD, TSD, SRP, PVD, benchmark functions
ics. AOA is a good optimization device with respect in
the direction of speed of convergence and investiga-
tion-management stability, as it is successfully relevant
for solving complex optimization difficulty
55 RSO Dhiman et al. (2021) The main encouragement of RSO is the hunting and PVD, SRP, WBD, TSD, REB and benchmark functions
aggressive activities of rats in natural world. RSO is
very successful for finding the solution of real life
optimization difficulty
R. Rani et al.
 Table 1  (continued)
S.no. Name of Author name Remarks Problems
the algo-
rithm

56 HGS Yang et al. (2021a, b) HGS is aggravated by appetite activities and behavioral WBD, IBD, benchmark functions
preference of animals. HGS is a method of energetic
nature, easy composition and good performance in
conditions of convergence and satisfactory value of
answers, showing to be extra resourceful than the
present optimization techniques
57 HOA MiarNaeimi et al. (2021) HOA is stimulated by horses’ herding activities for Benchmark functions
multi dimensional optimization difficulty. HOA has a
good optimization tool for solving high dimensional
complex problems
58 POA Wei et al. (2021) POA is encouraged by the “preachers” social activities. PVD, WBD, TSD, benchmark functions
Convergence accuracy of POA becomes better quality
by developing the primary choice of offspring persons
A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective…

59 BRO RahkarFarshi (2021) BRO is stimulated by a nature of cybernetic games

named as “battle royals.” BRO is introduced as an
inhabitants-based optimization method in which each
entity is represented through a performer that would be
similar tomove in the direction of the best position and
eventually continue to exist
60 CMBO Dehghani et al. (2021) CMBO is aggravated by the ordinary activities between Benchmark functions
mice and cat. In CMBO, the faction of cats with regard
to mice in addition to the run-away of mice with
regard to paradise is imitated
61 TSO Xie et al. (2021) TSO is inspired from the supportive foraging actions by PVD, TSD, and WBD, benchmark functions
tuna swarm. The exertion imitates two grazing deport-
ment by tuna swarm, as well as parabolic grazing and
Page 15 of 51

spiral grazing, for rising an efficient metaheuristic

techniques
126

13
 Table 1  (continued)
126

S.no. Name of Author name Remarks Problems

the algo-

13
rithm

62 PPF Naik and Satapathy (2021) PPF is stimulated the experience of the organization TSD, WBD, CBD, TBT, benchmark functions
gain from a victorious person in the world. PPF is
Page 16 of 51

motivated by the idea of future development of a

human life turns on their precedent knowledge and at
hand effort
63 AFO Yang et al. (2021a, b) Emperor penguin’s temperate hugging activities are the TBTD, WBD, TSD and CBD, benchmark functions
main motivation of AFO. When finding an appropriate
position, emperor penguins require to awareness the
interchange in temperature and consider the position of
additional penguins, go near to the nucleus of penguin
inhabitants, reduce their power loss, and mention to
their remembrance
64 LPB Rahman and Rashid (2021) LPB stimulate the method of tolerant graduated student Benchmark functions
of high school in different departments in university
65 MGA Talatahari et al. (2021) Some higher and necessary feature of data science, SRP, TSD, PVD,, WBD, TBTD,REB, Benchmark func-
particularly the arrangement of chemical mixtures as tions
well as chemical response in fabricate new resources,
are set on as encouraging hypothesis of the MGA
66 CDDO Abdulhameed and Rashid (2022) CDDO technique stimulated by the knowledge actions Benchmark functions
of the child’s as well as cognitive improvement by the
fair proportion to upgrade the prettiness beyond their
skill
67 BO Das and Pratihar (2022) BO is motivated by the different interesting generative TSD, PVD, WBD and SRP, Benchmark functions
plans and social activities by the Bonobos. Bonobos
accept four unlike generative plans, like preventive
coupling, immoral coupling, additional-group cou-
pling and partnership coupling to continue a suitable
agreement in the the world
R. Rani et al.
 Table 1  (continued)
S.no. Name of Author name Remarks Problems
the algo-
rithm

68 RSA Abualigah et al. (2022) RSA is aggravated from the hunting actions by PVD, WBD, TSD, TBTD, SRP, CBD, Benchmark func-
crocodiles. Two main stages of crocodile activities tions
are executed, like encompassing that is executed by
high strolling or stomach strolling, and trapping that
is executed by trapping management or trapping col-
laboration
69 DTBO Dehghani et al. (2022) DTBO is encouraged by the human action of driv- PVD and WBD, Benchmark functions
ing guidance. DTBO is stimulated by the education
procedure of operate in the operating school and the
guidance of the operating coach. DTBO is accurately
customized in three stages: guidance by the operating
coach, affecting of students by teacher expertise and
performs
A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective…

70 POA Trojovský and Dehghani (2022) POA mimic the ordinary activities of pelicans through- PVD, SRP, WBD, and TSD, Benchmark functions
out trapping. In POA, hunt members are pelicans that
investigate for origin of the food
71 CSBO Ghasemi et al. (2022) CSBO is a bio-stimulated method is revealed to crack TSD, TBTD, PVD, Benchmark functions
big level optimization problems. CSBO is modeled
mathematically based on body’s blood vessels func-
tion in the body with two distinguishing circuits, i.e.
systematic and pulmonary circuits
72 CO Akbari et al. (2022) Cheetahs normally use three plans of action for trapping Benchmark functions
quarry i.e., penetrating, sitting, awaiting and castigat-
ing. These game plans are affected in this vocation.
CO can be effectively crack big scale and demanding
optimization issues and provide a major improvement
over dissimilar principles and enhanced and mixture
Page 17 of 51

accessible methods
126

13
 Table 1  (continued)
126

S.no. Name of Author name Remarks Problems

the algo-

13
rithm

73 PDO Ezugwu et al. (2022) PDO is encouraged from the performance by the WBD, PVD, TSD, SRP, TBTD, CBD, IBD, Benchmark
prairie dogs in his ordinary habitation. PDO uses four functions
Page 18 of 51

activities of prairie dog to complete the two common

optimization stages, investigation and management
74 GOA Agushaka et al. (2022) GOA is stimulated by the gazelles’ endurance ability in WBD, TSD, PVD, SRP, Benchmark functions
their marauder conquered environment
75 MGO Abdollahzadeh et al. (2022) MGO encouraged by the collective living and grading Benchmark functions
of wild mountain gazelles. In MGO ‘gazelles’ peck-
ing order and collective life is put together modeled
mathematically and utilized to build up an optimiza-
tion technique
76 CBOA Trojovská and Dehghani (2022) CBOA is motivated by the development of cooking PVD, SRP, WBD, TSD and benchmark functions
knowledge expertise in guidance journey. The steps
of the cooking schooling course in dissimilar steps
are modeled mathematically adapted with the plan
of growing the capability of universal investigate in
searching and the capacity of local investigation in
searching
77 HPO Naruei et al. (2022) HPO is stimulated from the performance of marauder SRP, REB, CBD, WBD, TBTD, PVD and TSD, bench-
animals like lions, wolves and leopards, and quarry mark functions
like gazelle and celibate. Hunter modifies his location
regarding this distant quarry, and the quarry adapts his
location to a protected place. The exploration repre-
sentation location that was the greatest importance of
the fittingness purpose measured a protected place
78 SFOA Kivi and Majidnezhad (2022) SFOA is stimulated by the sheep guy and sheep conduct TSD and PVD, benchmark functions
in the grassland. SFOA include three move style (1)
sheep man supervision (2) previous best knowledge of
sheep’s (3) move toward of sheep’s to another sheep
R. Rani et al.
 Table 1  (continued)
S.no. Name of Author name Remarks Problems
the algo-
rithm

79 WHO Naruei and Keynia (2022) The social interactions of wild horses inspire WHO. TSD, TBTD, REB, benchmark functions
Horses typically live in herds that include a stallion,
numerous mares, and foals. The proposed algorithm
was primarily inspired by the horse’s decent behavior
80 PBSO Guo et al. (2023) PBSO employs a unique approach for constructing a Benchmark functions
pairs of barracuda, successfully justifying the chal-
lenges faced by high dimensionality
81 NMHK Kapoor et al. (2023) NMHK is advanced version of GSK to solve multiobjec- Benchmark functions
tive optimization problems
82 LSO Rabie et al. (2023a, b) LSO is inspired by the hunting strategy of leopard seals. LSO is tested against other algorithms as a feature selec-
LSO has a high flexibility to solve real world optimiza- tion algorithm using two metrices execution time and
tion problems in a minimum time without trapping accuracy
into local optima
A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective…

83 RPO Rabie et al. (2023a, b) RPO is inspired by the social hunting behavior of red Feature selection problem
Piranha. RPO can be applied to solve big scale optimi-
zation problems covering different disciplines
Page 19 of 51
126

13
 Table 2  Review papers on NIA from 2019 to 2023
126

Sr. no. Author Summary

13
1 Dokeroglu et al. (2019) In this paper the nature stimulated metaheuristic algorithms of the previous two decades are reviewed.
As per their review, a metaheuristic algorithm developed before the year 2000 is called a “classical”
metaheuristic algorithm. They briefly explained these classical metaheuristics along with fourteen new
metaheuristic algorithms discovered between 2000 and 2020
Page 20 of 51

2 Yang (2020) The focus of this study is on the search processes and mathematical underpinnings of some recent nature-
inspired algorithms. Five unresolved concerns relating to the investigation of algorithmic convergence
and stability, parameter tuning, the mathematical framework, the function of benchmarking and scal-
ability are highlighted. The first concern is to create a unified framework for mathematically analyz-
ing all nature-inspired algorithms in order to learn in-depth details about their convergence, rate of
convergence, stability, and robustness, and second concern is to best adjust an algorithm’s parameters in
order to get the best results for a specific set of problems and control these parameters so as to maximize
the performance of an algorithm. The third concern is the use of benchmark functions to examine how
the new algorithm might perform in contrast to other algorithms is a vital study for any new algorithm,
especially one inspired by nature. Through this benchmarking, researchers can better understand the
algorithm’s convergence behavior, stability, benefits, and drawbacks. The important query, though, is
what benchmarks should be utilized for a given set of problems. All algorithms must therefore exert the
same amount of computational effort in order to be fair, which is typically accomplished by limiting the
number of function evaluations. The fourth concern is that the computational time must be same to com-
pare the performance of algorithms. It seems to reason that even a poor algorithm may be able to produce
acceptable results if given a lot more time to run than the others. The fifth concern is that how to most
effectively scale up algorithms that solve small-scale problems to effectively handle truly large-scale,
practical problems
R. Rani et al.
 Table 2  (continued)
Sr. no. Author Summary

3 Wang et al. (2021) This study presents an organized review of the literature on the nature-inspired method in logistics.
Logistics includes the planning, monitoring, and control of product storage between the levels of use
and manufacture. They divided the articles into three categories: forwarding logistics, reverse logis-
tics, and integrated logistics. In conventional forward logistics, raw materials are often purchased from
suppliers and then turned into completed goods. Following that, distribution centre provides these
products to customers in order to satisfy their wants. Reverse logistics are used to process the flow of
returned goods from customers back to gathering points. Since developing reverse and forward logistics
separately results in suboptimal plans in relation to supply chain objectives, the two must be combined.
Both vertical and horizontal integration can be used to describe this process. The first type consists of a
mix of activities that are in the same planning stage. Five important algorithms have been studied in this
study: artificial bee colony, genetic algorithm, memetic algorithm, ant colony optimization, and particle
swarm optimization. The outcomes of actual case studies show that the PSO is capable of handling actual
reverse logistics issues in international search areas. They can observe that, so far, hybrids of genetic
algorithms have proven to be the most effective. In order to optimize the logistics and select a suitable
distribution, it is imperative to conduct research on the logistics distribution route optimization, employ-
ing cutting-edge, nature-inspired algorithms
A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective…

4 Tzanetos and Dounias (2021) This study tried to describe NIA and also to examine whether there is an actual requirement to continue
on proposing new similar approaches in literature. This study proposed the creation of a database with
well-known standard benchmarks for comparing the effectiveness of NI algorithms as a crucial step for
the near future. The necessity of unreasonably introducing new nature-inspired intelligent (NII) algo-
rithms in literature is also questioned, and the potential negative effects of NII algorithms encountered
in literature are examined. In an effort to reduce the deceptive appearance of metaheuristic variation as
nature-inspired optimization algorithms, rules for the creation of new nature-inspired algorithms are also
put forward. In order to assess the significance and potential of each NI technique, the applications of the
NI algorithms to real-world issues were examined in this research
5 Rai et al. (2022) This study provides an in-depth review of the novel NIA developed in 2019–2021.The most important
challenges that come throughout the development of multi-thresholding model of an image based on
NIA are presented in their review. Their study focuses on new NIA and multi-level thresholding (MLT)
applications during the past three years (2019–2021)
Page 21 of 51
126

13
 Table 2  (continued)
126

Sr. no. Author Summary

13
6 Muazu et al. (2022) NIA that emerged between 2001 and 2021, including the Ebola optimization algorithm, the Corona virus
optimization algorithm, and others is described in this paper. The purpose of this study is to present a
review of these algorithms and their use in their current state and for future inspiration in the area of con-
nective t-way testing for improved optimization. They give brief knowledge about NIA and divide them
Page 22 of 51

into four classes: evolution-inspired technique, swarm-inspired technique, human-inspired technique, and
physics-inspired technique. Some future research direction is given in this study for the use of recently
developed metaheuristic like season optimization (SO), Tree growth algorithm (TGA), corona virus
optimization algorithm (COA), Tunicate swarm algorithm (TSA) etc. for solving combinatorial t-way
optimization difficulty, use of nature stimulated metaheuristic algorithm in image segmentation difficulty,
engineering problem, feature assortment problems, initiate a privacy problem in connective t-way testing
7 Vinod Chandra and Anand (2022) This paper gives a brief overview of computing models influenced by nature, hybrid metaheuristic models,
and hyper heuristic models. This study shows a major involvement in constructing a hyper heuristics
technique from metaheuristic techniques for any common problem field. Traditional and non-traditional
(new generation) metaheuristic algorithms have also well described in this paper. Here, nature-inspired
computing models are partitioned in three computing models inspired by bio, evolution and swarm-
based. The basic inspiration of hyperheuristics is to build up new techniques by joining known heuristics.
Heuristic selection and heuristic generation are two main categories of hyper-heuristics. The main
objective of hyperheuristics is to increase computational speed, results that are sensibly understandable,
reliable in quality, notable and good presentation across a broad scale of problems that divide ordinary
features. An uncomplicated hill climbing example using dual heuristic is given in this paper to show how
the performance can be enhanced using hyperheuristic
8 Nayak (2023) In this study, use of NIA into schedule task is discussed. Task scheduling with different type of NIA like
genetic algorithm, water cycle algorithm etc. are presented in this paper
9 Mandal (2023) This review paper gives a detail of recent use of NIA and classical method to solve single and multi-
objective optimization problems. In this paper NIA is classified into three categories named as swarm
intelligence-based NIA, evolutionary algorithm and other metaheuristic. Evolutionary algorithm and
swarm intelligence-based NIA are further divided into five subcategories. This survey provides a
comprehensive perspective to selected the best method to solve different type of optimization problems
according the complexity of the problems
R. Rani et al.
A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective… Page 23 of 51 126

best of the authors’ knowledge, no research article has been published that claims this spe-
cific algorithm is the most effective at solving the single objective optimization problems.
Thus, this paper will help the researchers to identify the importance of each algorithm and
their applications to solve the various engineering design optimization problems. Table 1
shows that of the 83 NIA algorithms, 40 worked on WBD, 38 on TSD, 37 on PVD, 15 on
CBD, 8 on IBD, 15 on REB, 24 on SRP and 18 on TBTD. We have considered these NIAs
in this study, as most of the researchers have frequently used these algorithms to compare
the performance of their newly developed algorithm.

3 Comparative analysis

This study’s main goal is to review the several algorithms that may be used to solve single-
objective constrained problems and determine the best solution. In this section, we have
attempted to identify the most effective and efficient algorithms for solving the optimi-
zation problems. For this purpose, we studied all newly developed algorithms from 2019
to 2023 and will report the optimal solution obtained from them. From the 83 research
publications listed in Table 1, we identified eight common engineering problems, namely
welded beam design (WBM), tension spring design (TSD), pressure-vessel design (PVD),
cantilever beam design (CBD), I Beam Design (IBD), Rolling Element Bearing (REB),
speed reducer problem (SRP) and Three Bar Truss Design (TBTD). We have reported the
results of all existing algorithms on these eight problems and compare their performances.
The optimal results are obtained by considering 30 independent runs of each algorithm and
iteration number as 500 to 1000 as a stopping criteria.

3.1 Welded beam design (WBD)

The goal of this problem is to decrease the welded cost of a WBD. The constraints are as
follow:

1. sheer stress (μ);

2. bending stress in the beam (φ);
3. bucking load on the block ( Bc);
4. end deflection of the beam (Υ);
5. side constraints.

This problem includes four variables likebreadth of weld (t1), the length of the con-
nected part of the block (t2) height of the block (t3) and the thickness of the block (t4). The
mathematical formulation of this design problem is listed as below:
[ ]
Consider ⃗t = t1 t2 t3 t4 ,

() ( )
Minimize f ⃗t = 1.10471t12 t2 + 0.04811t3 t4 14.0 + t2 ,

Subject to
() ()
y1 ⃗t = μ ⃗t − μmax ≤ 0,

13
126 Page 24 of 51 R. Rani et al.

()
y2 ⃗t = φ(t) − φmax ≤ 0,

() ()
y3 ⃗t = Υ ⃗t − Υmax ≤ 0,

()
y4 ⃗t = t1 − t4 ≤ 0,

() ( )
y5 ⃗t = T − Bc x�⃗ ≤ 0,

()
y6 ⃗t = 0.125 − t1 ≤ 0,

() ( )
y7 ⃗t = 1.10471t21 + 0.04811t3 t4 14.0 + t2 − 5.0 ≤ 0,

0.1 ≤ t1 ≤ 2, 0.1 ≤ t2 ≤ 10, 0.1 ≤ t3 ≤ 10, 0.1 ≤ t4 ≤ 2,

() √
where μ ⃗t =
t
(μ� )2 + 2μ� μ�� 2V2 + μ�� 2

T � � 4Tl3 � � 6TX
μ� = √ ; Υ ⃗t = 2 ; 𝜑 ⃗t = ,
2t1 t2 Et3 t4 t4 t23

√
( ( )2
UV t ) t22 t1 + t 3
μ =��
; U=T X+ 2 ; V = + ,
W 2 12 2

�
� � � � �� � �
6
t23 t4 �
√ t22 t1 + t3 2 � � 4.013E 36 t E
W=2 2t1 t2 ; Bc ⃗t = 1− 3 ,
4 2 X2 2X 4G

T = 6000lb, X = 14 in., Υmax = 0.25 in., E = 30 × 106 psi.

Out of 83 research papers, 40 researchers have worked on WBD problem. Table 3

shows the comparative analysis of all 40 algorithms for t1 (thickness of the weld), t2
(length of the attached part of the bar), t3 (height of the bar), t4 (thickness of the bar) and
found that AO method is giving minimum cost out of all NIA algorithms.

3.2 Tension/compression spring design (TSD) problem

The aim of this problem is to get the lowest weight of TSD. The constraints are
described as lowest deflection/shear stress and surge frequency together with design
variables as well as mean coin diameter (t2 ), wire diameter (t1) and numeral of active
coils ( t3).
The mathematical formulation of the problem is as follow:

13
A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective… Page 25 of 51 126

Table 3  Result of different algorithms for WBD

Sr. no. Algorithms t1 t2 t3 t4 Optimum cost

1 BOA 0.1736 2.9690 8.7637 0.2188 1.6644

2 HHO 0.2040 3.5311 9.0275 0.2061 1.7313
3 HGSO 0.2054 3.4476 9.2060 0.2060 1.7260
4 MPA 0.2057 3.4705 9.0366 0.2057 1.7249
5 PFA 0.2057 3.4705 9.0366 0.2057 1.7249
6 SFO 0.2038 3.6630 9.0506 0.2064 1.7323
7 SOA 0.2054 3.4723 9.0352 0.2011 1.7235
8 SMA 0.2054 3.2589 9.0384 0.2058 1.6960
9 BWO 0.1987 3.4217 9.0286 0.2001 1.6638
10 MRFO 0.2057 3.4705 9.0366 0.2057 1.7249
11 WSA 0.2057 3.4705 9.0366 0.2057 1.7249
12 MGA 1.6729
13 BOA 0.2057 3.4705 9.0366 0.2057 1.7249
14 NRO 1.7248
15 DTBO 0.2057 3.4705 9.0366 0.2057 1.7249
16 POA 0.2057 3.4701 9.0383 0.2057 1.7250
17 HPO 0.1988 3.3377 9.1920 0.1988 1.6702
18 EO 0.2057 3.4705 9.0366 0.2057 1.7249
19 RSO 0.2053 3.4657 9.0345 0.2010 1.7220
20 PO 1.7249
21 AEO 0.2057 3.4705 9.0366 0.2057 1.7249
22 SOA 0.2054 3.4723 9.0352 0.2011 1.7235
23 AOS 0.2057 3.4705 9.0366 0.2057 1.7249
24 FDA 0.2055 3.2578 9.0366 0.2057 1.6955
25 AO 0.1631 3.3652 9.0202 0.2067 1.6566
26 AVOA 0.2057 3.4705 9.0366 0.2057 1.7249
27 AOA 0.1945 2.5709 10.0000 0.2018 1.7164
28 CSA 0.2057 3.4705 9.0366 0.2057 1.7249
29 AOA 0.2057 3.4705 9.0366 0.2057 1.7249
30 TSO 0.2057 3.4704 9.0334 0.2057 1.7248
31 QANA 0.2057 3.4705 9.0366 0.2057 1.7249
32 ROA 0.2001 3.3658 9.0112 0.2069 1.7064
33 HGS 0.2600 5.1025 8.0396 0.2600 2.3021
34 RSA 0.1446 3.514 8.9251 0.21162 1.6726
35 BO 0.2057 3.4705 9.0366 0.2057 1.7249
36 PDO 0.1963 3.4932 9.0856 0.2070 1.6882
37 PPF 0.2056 3.2547 9.0366 0.2057 1.6953
38 CBOA 1.7246
39 POA 0.2025 3.5429 9.0334 0.2061 1.7323
40 GOA 0.1810 3.7550 9.0367 0.2057 1.6957

Bold indicates the best algorithm for that particular problem

*Blank space indicates no data available in respective research paper

13
 126 Page 26 of 51 R. Rani et al.

Consider ⃗t = [t1 t2 t3 ] = [w c a],

() ( )
Minimize f ⃗t = t3 + 2 t2 t21 .

Subject to

() t32 t3
y1 ⃗t = 1 − ≤ 0,
71785t41

() 4t22 − t1 t2 1
y2 ⃗t = + − 1 ≤ 0,
12566(t2 t31 − t41 ) 5108t21

() 140.45
y3 ⃗t = 1 − 3 ≤ 0,
t2 t3

( ) t +t
y4 ⃗t = 1 2 − 1 ≤ 0.
1.5
Variable range
0.05 ≤ t1 ≤ 2, 0.25 ≤ t2 ≤ 1.30, 2 ≤ t3 ≤ 15.

Out of 83 research papers, 38 researchers have worked on the same problem. We have com-
pared the optimum cost of each 38 algorithms in Table 4 for coin diameter (t2), wire diameter
(t1) and numeral of active coils (t3).The AO method shows the optimal weight out of all.

3.3 Pressure vessel design (PVD) problem

In PVD, we reduce the manufacturecost and it contains four constraints, four parameters and
four variables t1 to t4:St(t1, width of the shell), Ht(t2 , width of the head), M (t3, internal radius),
N (t4, length of the component without head).
The mathematical model of this problem is as follow:
[ ]
Consider ⃗t = [t1 , t2 , t3 , t4 ] = St , H t , M, N ,

()
Minimize f ⃗t = 0.6224t1 t3 t4 + 1.7781t2 t32 + 3.1661t21 t4 + 19.84t21 t3 .

Subject to
()
y1 ⃗t = −t1 + 0.0193t3 ≤ 0,

()
y2 ⃗t = −t2 + 0.00954t3 ≤ 0,

() 4
y3 ⃗t = −Πt23 t4 − Πt33 + 1, 296, 000 ≤ 0,
3

13
A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective… Page 27 of 51 126

Table 4  Result of different Sr. no. Algorithms t1 t2 t3 Optimal weight

algorithms on TSD
1 BOA 0.0513 0.3349 12.9227 0.0120
2 GBO 0.0520 0.3651 10.8146 0.0127
3 HHO 0.0518 0.3593 11.1389 0.0126
4 HGSO 0.0518 0.3569 11.2023 0.0126
5 MPA 0.0517 0.3576 11.2392 0.0127
6 PFA 0.0517 0.3576 11.2357 0.0127
7 SOA 0.0511 0.3429 12.0085 0.0126
8 BWO 0.0511 0.3430 12.0914 0.0126
9 BOA 0.0516 0.3558 11.3418 0.0127
10 AEO 0.0519 0.3618 10.8798 0.0127
11 PO 0.0128
12 MRFO 0.5223 0.3733 10.3831 0.0126
13 SOA 0.0511 0.3429 12.0875 0.0127
14 EO 0.0516 0.3550 11.3879 0.0126
15 POA 0.0518 0.3616 11.0079 0.0126
16 POA 0.0516 0.3559 11.3312 0.0126
17 MGA 0.0126
18 HPO 0.0517 0.3579 11.2153 0.0126
19 AOS 0.0517 0.3567 11.2883 0.0127
20 FDA 0.0517 0.3579 11.2224 0.0127
21 AO 0.0502 0.3526 10.5425 0.0112
22 AVOA 0.0517 0.3563 11.3161 0.0127
23 AOA 0.0500 0.3498 11.8637 0.0121
24 CSA 0.0518 0.3589 11.1650 0.0127
25 AOA 0.0508 0.3348 11.7020 0.0127
26 QANA 0.0519 0.3624 10.9616 0.0127
27 BO 0.0517 0.3566 11.2933 0.0127
28 RSO 0.0511 0.3420 12.0667 0.0127
29 SFOA 0.0519 0.3613 11.0280 0.0127
30 PDO 0.0517 0.3582 11.2038 0.0127
31 PPF 0.0518 0.3588 11.1562 0.0126
32 CBOA 0.0127
33 GOA 0.1344 1.1676 14.2742 3.6619
34 RSA 0.0578 0.5848 4.0167 0.0118
35 TSO 0.0516 0.3556 11.3542 0.0127
36 WHO 0.0126
37 CSBO 0.0517 0.3577 11.2312 0.0127
38 NRO 0.0127

Bold indicates the best algorithm for that particular problem

*Blank space indicates no data available in respective research paper

13
 126 Page 28 of 51 R. Rani et al.

Table 5  Performance of dissimilar algorithms for solving PVD

Sr. no. Algorithms St Ht M N Optimum cost

1 HHO 0.8176 0.4373 42.0917 176.7196 6000.4620

2 MPA 0.7782 0.3846 40.3196 199.9990 5885.3350
3 PFA 0.7782 0.3846 40.3196 199.9900 5885.3351
4 SOA 0.7781 0.3832 40.3152 200.0000 5879.5241
5 SMA 0.7931 0.3932 40.6711 196.2178 5994.1857
6 MRFO 0.7787 0.3849 40.3446 199.6515 5886.2000
7 PO 5908.0250
8 LCBO 1.2569 0.6187 65.1248 10.4330 5320.0000
9 AEO 0.8374 0.4139 43.3896 161.2685 6820.8007
10 SOA 0.7781 0.3832 40.3151 200.0000 5878.4521
11 AOS 0.7787 0.3853 40.3409 199.7215 5888.4579
12 EO 0.8125 0.4375 42.0984 176.6365 6059.7143
13 AO 1.0540 0.1828 59.6219 38.8050 5949.2258
14 BWO 0.7778 0.3731 39.9973 199.9361 5796.0389
15 HPO 0.7781 0.3846 40.3196 200.0000 5885.3327
16 POA 0.8291 0.4098 42.9605 167.0972 5999.4001
17 MGA 6059.7143
18 DTBO 0.7786 0.3853 40.3428 199.5782 5885.3550
19 POA 0.7780 0.3846 40.3126 199.9972 5883.0278
20 AVOA 0.7790 0.3850 40.3603 199.4342 5886.6765
21 AOA 0.8304 0.4162 42.7513 169.3454 6048.7844
22 CSA 12.4507 6.1544 40.3196 200.0000 5885.3327
23 AOA 0.7900 0.3899 41.0226 199.4405 5900.0000
24 QANA 0.7782 0.3846 40.3196 200.0000 5885.3328
25 ROA 0.7296 0.2227 40.4323 198.5537 5311.9175
26 BOA 0.7783 0.3848 40.3263 199.9210 5886.1681
27 BO 0.8125 0.4375 42.0984 176.6366 6059.7144
28 RSO 0.7760 0.3831 40.3133 200.0000 5878.5395
29 SFOA 0.7782 0.3847 40.3200 200.0000 5886.8000
30 PDO 0.7938 0.2539 49.0582 105.9976 4527.2000
31 DOX 0.7782 0.3848 40.3150 200.0000 5885.5700
32 CBOA 5883.1170
33 GOA 0.5479 0.2469 43.4967 160.0482 4527.5000
34 RSA 0.8401 0.4190 43.3817 161.5556 6034.7591
35 TSO 0.7782 0.3846 40.3196 199.9999 5885.3327
36 CSBO 0.8125 0.4375 42.0984 1.7664 6059.7143
37 NRO 5835.3327

Bold indicates the best algorithm for that particular problem

*Blank space indicates no data available in respective research paper

13
A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective… Page 29 of 51 126

()
y4 ⃗t = −t4 − 240 ≤ 0,

Variable range
0 ≤ t1 ≤ 99, 0 ≤ t2 ≤ 99, 10 ≤ t3 ≤ 200, 10 ≤ t4 ≤ 200.

Out of 83 research papers 37 researchers have worked on the same problem. We have
compared the optimum cost of each 37 algorithms in Table 5 for St (width of the shell),
Ht (width of the head), M (internal radius), N (length of the component without head).The
PDO method shows the optimal cost out of all.

3.4 Cantilever beam design (CBD) problem

The cantilever beam is built from five components, each component contains a vacant cross
section with stable thickness. There is outer force performing at the open end of the can-
tilever. The mass of the beam is to be reduced while the higher limit is assigning on the
vertical displacement of the free end. The devise variables are the width or height, ui of the
cross section of each component. The problem is formulated mathematically using classi-
cal beam theory are as follow:
Minimize f itness = 0.0624 × (u1 + u2 + u + u4 + u5 ).

Subject to
61 37 19 7 1
g(x) = + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 − 1 ≤ 0.
u31 u2 u3 u4 u5

Variable ranges

Table 6  Performance of different algorithms for solving problem of CBD

Sr. no. Algorithms u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 Optimum cost

1 GBO 6.0124 5.3129 4.4941 3.5036 2.1506 1.3400

2 PFA 6.0155 5.3090 4.4946 3.5018 2.1528 1.3400
3 SAR 6.0161 5.3092 4.4941 3.5016 2.1526 1.3400
4 SMA 6.0178 5.3109 4.4936 3.5011 2.1050 1.3400
5 WSA 5.9759 4.8808 4.4654 3.4778 2.1392 1.3033
6 BOA 5.9696 4.8871 4.4615 3.4753 2.1458 1.3066
7 LCBO 6.0237 5.3008 4.4977 3.4892 2.1559 1.3400
8 AEO 6.0289 5.3165 4.4626 3.5084 2.1578 1.3400
9 AO 5.8881 5.5451 4.3798 3.5973 2.1026 1.3390
10 PDO 5.6896 5.0208 4.2617 3.3130 2.0409 1.3004
11 PPF 6.0206 5.2922 4.4983 3.5221 2.1363 1.3363
12 AEO 6.0289 5.3165 4.4626 3.5084 2.1577 1.3399
13 RSA 6.0231 5.4457 4.2770 3.5853 2.1767 1.3386
14 HPO 6.0055 5.3059 4.4947 3.5134 2.1542 1.3365
15 MGA 6.0117 5.3157 4.5107 3.4857 2.1503 1.3400

Bold indicates the best algorithm for that particular problem

13
 126 Page 30 of 51 R. Rani et al.

0.01 ≤ u1 , u2 , u3 , u4 , u5 ≤ 100.

Out of 83 research papers 15 researchers have worked on same problem. We have com-
pared the optimum cost of each 15 algorithms in Table 6 for u1 , u2 , u3 , u4 , u5 (height of five
hollow square blocks with constant thickness) and found PDO method shows the optimal
cost out of all.

3.5 I beam design (IBD)

The objective of this problem is to minimize the vertical deflection of the beam depend
on correlated parameters. The IBD isfocus to two devise constraints: stress and the load’s
cross-sectional area. This problem contain four design variables are as follows: the width
of the flange’s (v), the height of component (u), the thickness of the web’s (Wt, ), and the
thickness of the flange’s (F t ).
The formulation of this design is as follow:
5000
Minimize fitness = ( )2 .
1 ( )3 v−Ft
W v
12 t,
− 2Ft + 16 uFt3 + 2uFt 2

Subject to:
( )3
y1 (x) = 2uFt + Wt, v − 2Ft ≤ 300,

180, 000x1 15, 000x2

y2 (x) = ( )3 + 3
≤ 6.
3
Wt v − 2Ft + 2uFt [4Ft2 + 3v(v − Ft )] (v − 2Ft )Wt + 2Ft u

The variables are subject to:

10 ≤ v ≤ 80, 10 ≤ u ≤ 50, 0.9 ≤ Wt, ≤ 5, 0.9 ≤ Ft ≤ 5.

Out of 83 research papers 8 researchers have worked on the same problem. We have
compared the optimum cost of each 8 algorithms in Table 7 for width of the flange’s (v),
the height of component (u), the thickness of the web’s (Wt, ), and the thickness of the
flange’s (F t ) and found that ROA shows the optimal weight.

Table 7  Performance of different algorithms on problem of IBD

Sr. no. Algorithms v u Wt Ft Optimal weight

1 GBO 50.0000 80.0000 0.9000 2.3217 0.0131

2 SFO 50.0000 80.0000 1.7637 5.0000 0.0066
3 SAR 80.0000 50.0000 0.9000 2.3218 0.0131
4 SMA 49.9988 79.9943 1.7647 4.9997 0.0066
5 ROA 50.0000 80.0000 1.7600 5.0000 0.0059
6 HGS 50.0000 80.0000 0.9000 2.3218 0.0131
7 MGA 49.9999 79.9999 0.9000 2.3217 0.0130
8 PDO 80.0000 50.0000 0.9000 2.3218 0.0131

Bold indicates the best algorithm for that particular problem

13
A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective… Page 31 of 51 126

3.6 Rolling element bearing (REB) problem

The aim of this engineering problem is to maximize the carrying capacity of dynamic
load of REBin so far as possible. Outcomes of this difficulty included 10 decision
variables like diameter of a ball ( Bb ), diameter of a pitch ( Bm ), total number of balls
(n), curvature coefficients of inner ( Xi ) and outer ( X0 ) raceway, KGmin , KGmax , 𝜇, 𝜈, 𝝋. The
mathematical expression of this difficulty given below:
{ 2

Maximize Z = Fc × n 3 × B1.8
b
; ifBb ≤ 25.4 .
3.647 × Fc × n2∕3 × B1.4 b
; otherwise

Subject to:
( ) 𝜃0
h1 x�⃗ = − n + 1 ≤ 1,
−1 Bb
2sin ( B )
m

( )
h2 x�⃗ = 2Bb − KGmin (G − g) ≥ 0,

( )
h3 x�⃗ = KGmax (G − g) − 2Bb ≥ 0,

( )
h4 x�⃗ = 𝜑Wb − Bb ≤ 0,

( )
h5 x�⃗ = Bm − 0.5 × (G + g) ≥ 0,

( )
h6 x�⃗ = Bm − (0.5 + 𝜈) × (G + g) − Bm ≥ 0,

( ) ( )
h7 x�⃗ = 0.5 G − Bm − Bb − 𝜇Bb ≥ 0,

( )
h8 x�⃗ = Xi ≥ 0.515,

( )
h9 x�⃗ = X0 ≥ 0.515,

where
� � � � 10∕3 ⎤−0.3 � � � �0.41
⎡ � �1.72 X 2X − 1 0.41
1 + 𝜎 𝜎 0.3 (1 − 𝜎)1.39 2Xi
Fc = 37.91⎢1 + ⎥
i 0
× × ,
⎢ 1−𝜎 Xo (2XI − 1 ⎥ (1 + 𝜎)1∕3 2Xi − 1
⎣ ⎦

[{ ]
( )}2 { }2 { g }
G−g L G L L 2
k= −3 + − − Bb − + ,
2 4 2 4 2 4

13
 126

13
Table 8  Performance of different algorithms to solve REB
Page 32 of 51

Sr. no. Algorithms Bb Bm Xi X0 n KGmin KGmax 𝜇 𝜈 𝜑 Optimal cost

1 GBO 21.8750 125.0000 0.5150 0.5150 11.2882 0.4148 0.6287 0.3000 0.0203 0.6721 85,245.0611
2 HHO 21.0000 125.0000 0.5150 0.5150 11.0921 0.4000 0.6000 0.3000 0.0505 0.6000 83,011.8833
3 SOA 21.4189 125.0000 0.5150 0.5150 10.9412 0.4000 0.7000 0.3000 0.0200 0.6000 85,068.0520
4 MRFO 21.4255 125.7190 0.5150 0.5150 11.0000 0.4051 0.6906 0.6926 0.3000 0.0537 85,549.2390
5 HBO 21.4230 125.7194 0.5150 0.5150 11.0000 0.4881 0.6794 0.3000 0.0690 0.6082 85,532.5700
6 AEO 21.4256 125.7189 0.5150 0.5150 11.0000 0.4102 0.6384 0.3000 0.0470 0.6095 85,549.0559
7 SOA 21.4190 125.0000 0.5150 0.5150 10.9411 0.4000 0.7000 0.3000 0.0200 0.6000 85,068.8570
8 AVOA 21.4233 125.7227 0.5150 0.5150 11.0012 0.4044 0.6187 0.3000 0.0691 0.6025 85,539.1579
9 CSA 21.4180 125.0000 0.5150 0.5150 11.3560 0.4000 0.7000 0.3000 0.0200 0.6120 85,201.6410
10 ROA 22.0660 127.4109 0.5250 0.5252 11.9023 0.4078 0.6116 0.3058 0.0260 0.6117 87,971.8530
11 RSO 21.4177 125.0000 0.5150 0.5150 10.9403 0.4000 0.7000 0.3000 0.0200 0.6000 85,069.0210
12 RSA 21.2973 125.1722 0.5153 0.5178 10.8852 0.4125 0.6323 0.3019 0.0244 0.6024 83,486.6400
13 WHO 14,614.1357
14 HPO 21.8750 125.0000 0.5150 0.5157 10.7770 0.4000 0.7000 0.3000 0.0290 0.6000 83,918.4925
15 MGA 21.8745 125.0003 0.5150 0.5150 10.7171 0.4059 0.6556 0.3000 0.0775 0.6000 83,912.8798

Bold indicates the best algorithm for that particular problem

*Blank space indicates no data available in respective research paper
R. Rani et al.
A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective… Page 33 of 51 126

{ ( )} { }
G−g L G L
l=2 −3 × − − Bb ,
2 4 2 4

( )
k
𝜃0 = 2Π − cos−1 ,
l
where Wb = 30, G = 160, g = 90, ui = u0 = 11.033, 𝜎 = , , ,
Bb ui u0
Bm
Xi = Bb
Xo = Bb
L = G − g − 2Bb, 0.15 ≤ (G − g) ≤ Bb ≤ 0.45, 4 ≤ n ≤ 50, 0.515 ≤ Xi , X0 ≤ 0.60,
0.4 ≤ KGmin ≤ 0.5, 0.6 ≤ KGmax ≤ 0.7, 0.3 ≤ μ ≤ 0.4, 0.02 ≤ 𝜈 ≤ 0.1, 0.6 ≤ 𝜑 ≤ 0.85.
Out of 83 research papers 15 researchers have worked on the above problem. We have
compared the optimum cost of each 41 algorithms in Table 8 for diameter of a ball ( Bb ),
diameter of a pitch ( Bm ), total number of balls (n), curvature coefficients of inner ( Xi ) and
outer ( X0 ) raceway curvature coefficient, KGmin , KGmax , 𝜇, 𝜈, 𝝋. The ROA method shows the
optimal cost out of all.

3.7 Speed reducer problem (SRP)

The main objective is to minimize the weight of speed reducer in so far as possible through
subject to constraints:

– gear teeth under bending stress;

– surface stress;
– shafts transverse deflections;
– stresses in the shafts.

SRP contain seven design variables (u1 to u7) named as width of the face (u1), a set of
teeth (u2), total number of pinion teeth (u3), initial shaft distance between bearing (u4),
second shaft distance between bearing (u5), first shaft diameter (u6) and second shaft
diameter (u7).
( )
Minimize z = 0.7854u1 u22 × 3.3333 × u23 + 14.9334 × u3 − 43.0934
( )
− 1.508 × u26 + u27 + 7.4777(u36 + u37 ).

Subject to
( ) 27
t1 u�⃗ = ( 2 ) − 1 ≤ 0,
u1 u2 × u3

( ) 397.5
t2 u�⃗ = − 1 ≤ 0,
(u1 u22 × u23 )

( ) 1.93u34
t3 u�⃗ = − 1 ≤ 0,
(u2 u3 × u46 )

13
 126 Page 34 of 51 R. Rani et al.

( ) 1.93u35
t4 u�⃗ = − 1 ≤ 0,
(u2 u3 × u47 )

√( )
√
( ) √ 745u2
×√
1 4
t5 u�⃗ = + 16.9 × 106 − 1 ≤ 0,
110 × u36 u2 u3

√( )
√
( ) √ 745u2
t6 u�⃗ =
1
× √ 5
+ 157.5 × 106 − 1 ≤ 0,
85 × u37 u2 u3

( ) u u
t7 u�⃗ = 2 3 − 1 ≤ 0,
40

Table 9  Performance of several algorithms for solving the SRP

Sr. No. Algorithms u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7 Optimum cost

1 GBO 3.4999 0.7000 17.0000 7.3000 7.8000 3.3502 5.2866 2996.3481

2 HGSO 3.4980 0.7100 17.0200 7.6700 7.8100 3.3600 5.2890 2997.1000
3 SOA 3.5016 0.7000 17.0000 7.3000 7.8000 3.3342 5.2416 2992.9985
4 MRFO 3.5000 0.7000 17.0000 7.3000 7.7153 3.3502 5.2866 2994.4711
5 HBO 3.5000 0.7000 17.0000 7.3000 7.7153 3.3502 5.2867 2994.4711
6 PO 2994.4711
7 AEO 3.5000 0.7000 17.0000 7.3000 7.7153 3.3502 5.2867 2994.4711
8 SOA 3.5010 0.7000 17.0000 7.3000 7.8000 3.3342 5.2653 2993.4521
9 AOS 3.5000 0.7000 17.0000 7.3000 7.7150 3.3500 5.2866 2994.4458
10 FDA 3.5000 0.7000 17.0000 7.3000 7.8000 2.9000 5.0450 2749.5830
11 AO 3.5020 0.7000 17.0000 7.3090 7.7476 3.3641 5.2994 3007.7300
12 AOA 3.5038 0.7000 17.0000 7.3000 7.7293 3.3564 5.2860 2997.9157
13 CSA 3.5000 0.7000 17.0000 7.3000 7.7153 3.3502 5.2866 2994.4700
14 AOA 3.4976 0.7000 17.0000 7.3000 7.8000 3.3501 5.2857 3000.0000
15 BO 3.5000 0.7000 17.0000 7.3000 7.7150 3.3502 5.2865 2994.3810
16 RSO 3.5010 0.7000 17.0000 7.3000 7.8000 3.3230 5.2457 2993.0027
17 PDO 3.4978 0.7000 17.0000 7.3001 7.8007 3.3511 5.2965 2999.5000
18 CBOA 2994.1000
19 GOA 3.5000 0.7000 17.0000 7.3000 7.7000 3.3494 5.2879 2996.0010
20 SSA 2996.7077
21 RSA 3.5028 0.7000 17.0000 7.3081 7.7472 3.3507 5.2877 2996.5157
22 POA 3.5000 0.7000 17.0000 7.3000 7.8000 3.3502 5.2867 2996.3482
23 HPO 3.2412 0.7000 17.0000 7.3000 7.7153 3.3502 5.2867 2892.7292
24 MGA 2994.4389

Bold indicates the best algorithm for that particular problem

*Blank space indicates no data available in respective research paper

13
A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective… Page 35 of 51 126

( ) 5u
t8 u�⃗ = 2 − 1 ≤ 0,
u1

( ) u
t9 u�⃗ = 1 − 1 ≤ 0,
12u2

( ) 1.5u6 + 1.9
t10 u�⃗ = − 1 ≤ 0,
u4

( ) 1.1u7 + 1.9
t11 u�⃗ = − 1 ≤ 0,
u5

where 2.6 ≤ u1 ≤ 3.6, 0.7 ≤ u2 ≤ 0.8, 17 ≤ u3 ≤ 28, 7.3 ≤ u4 ≤ 8.3, 7.8 ≤ u5 ≤ 8.3,
2.9 ≤ u6 ≤ 3.9, 5.0 ≤ u7 ≤ 5.5.
Out of 83 research papers, 24 researchers have worked on same problem. We have
compared the optimum cost of each 24 algorithms in Table 9 for width of the face ( u1), a
set of teeth (u2 ), total number of pinion teeth (u3), initial shaft distance between bearing
(u4 ), second shaft distance between bearing (u5), first shaft diameter (u6 ) and second
shaft diameter (u7 ) and found FDA method best among all.

3.8 Three bar truss design (TBTD) problem

TBTD problem is considered as one of the essential engineering problems, which focuses
to find the smallest value under constraints such as bending, stress and bucking. This diffi-
culty contains two decision variables, together with the region of the first, second and third
bar.
The third bar truss problem is expressed mathematically as follow:
� � � √ �
Minimize Fitness x�⃗ = 2 2xB1 + xB2 × u.

Subject to
√
� � 2xB1 + xB2
t1 x�⃗ = √ L − 𝜎 ≤ 0,
2xB1 2 + 2xB1 xB2

� � xA 2
t2 x�⃗ = √ L − 𝜎 ≤ 0,
2xB1 2 + 2xB1 xB2

� � 1
t3 x�⃗ = √ L − 𝜎 ≤ 0,
2xB2 + xB1

2KN 2KN
0 ≤ xB1 , xB2 ≤ 1;u = 100 cm, L = 2
,𝜎 = .
cm cm2

13
 126 Page 36 of 51 R. Rani et al.

Table 10  Performance of Sr. no. Algorithms xB1 xB2 Optimum weight

different algorithms for solving
the problem of TBTD
1 GBO 0.7887 0.4082 263.8958
2 HHO 0.7887 0.4083 263.8958
3 SFO 0.7885 0.4089 263.8959
4 WSA 0.7887 0.4082 263.8958
5 AEO 0.7887 0.4082 263.8959
6 FDA 0.7887 0.4083 263.8958
7 AO 0.7926 0.3966 263.8684
8 AVOA 0.7887 0.4082 263.8958
9 AOA 0.7937 0.3943 263.9154
10 QANA 0.7887 0.4082 263.8958
11 ROA 0.7887 0.4082 263.8958
12 PDO 0.2195 0.1884 106.9300
13 WHO 263.8958
14 PPF 0.7861 0.4068 263.4634
15 RSA 0.7887 0.4081 263.8928
16 CSBO 0.7887 0.4082 263.8958
17 HPO 0.7886 0.4083 263.8958
18 MGA 263.8958

Bold indicates the best algorithm for that particular problem

*Blank space indicates no data available in respective research paper

Table 11  Best algorithm for real Algorithm Problems

life single objective engineering
problems
AO WBD and TSD
FDA SRP
ROA IBD and REB
PDO PVD, CBD and TBTD

Out of 83 research papers 18 researchers have worked on the same problem. After com-
paring the results for xB1 (area of the first and third bar) and xB2 (area of the second bar) in
Table 10 we found that PDO method performs better for the above-mentioned problem.

4 Result and discussion

NIA are stochastic investigation techniques, can move about to any convoluted search
space and situate optimal (near optimal) solutions in suitable computational time. They
can present solutions to every complex optimization difficulty that is not easily solved
by the predictable nonlinear programming (NLP) techniques because of their nature that
may involve point of discontinuities of the search domain, non-differentiable objective
functions, unfocused advice and values of the function. The algorithm discovered over
the last 5 years is presented in this study with their brief description. We have tried to
find out some best NIA to solve real world single objective optimization problems. For

13
A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective… Page 37 of 51 126

Table 12  Unimodal and multimodal benchmark function

∑n
F1 f (x) = i=1 xi
2
∑n � � ∏n � �
F2 f (x) = i=0 �xi � + i=0 �xi �
F3 ∑d �∑i �2
F(x) = i=1 j=1 xj
{ }
F4 f (x) = max ||xi ||, 1 ≤ i ≤ n
∑n−1 � � �2 �
F5 f (x) = i=1 100 xi2 − xi+1 + (1 − xi )2
F6 ∑n � �2
f (x) = i=1 ( xi + 0.5) )
∑n
F7 f (x) = i=0 ixi4 + random[0, 1)
�� �
F8 ∑ �x � )
f (x) = ni=1 (−xi2 sin � i�
( )
F9 f (x) = [xi2 − 10cos 2Πxi + 10]
� � ∑ � � ∑ �
F10
f (x) = −20exp −0.2 1n ni=1 xi2 − exp 1n ni=1 cos(2Πxi ) + 20 + e

∑n ∏n � �
F11 f (x) = 1 + 1 2
− cos
x
√i
4000 i=1 xi i=1 i

F12 � � ∑n � �2
f (x) = Πn 10sinΠy1 ) + i=1 yi − 1
� � � ∑ n � ��
1 + 10sin2 Πyi+1 + i=1 u xi , 10, 100, 4 ,
⎧ k(x − a)m ;ifx > a
xi+1 � ⎪ i� i
where yi = 1 + , u xi , a, k, m = ⎨ 0;if − a ≤ xi ≥ a
4
⎪ k(xi − a) ; − a ≤ xi
m
⎩
� 2� �� ∑n � � �� � �
F13 f (x) = 0.1 sin 3Πx1 + i=1 (xi − 1)2 + 1 + sin2 3Πxi + 1 + (xn − 1)2 + sin2 2Πxn
∑n
+ i=1 u(xi , 5, 100, 4)

Table 13  Comparison of Benchmark ROA for D = 100 (iteration AO for D = 100 (iteration
ROA and AO for average and function 500, population size 30) 500, population size 30)
standard deviation for dimension
(D) = 100 on 13 benchmark Average S.D Average S.D
function
F1 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
F2 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.09E−217 0.00E+00
F3 1.84E−209 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
F4 1.21E−171 0.00E+00 2.51E−219 0.00E+00
F5 2.70E+01 4.59E−01 2.47E−02 4.27E−02
F6 3.43E−02 8.11E−05 5.43E−04 9.29E−04
F7 1.13E−05 5.68E−05 8.95E−04 7.03E−04
F8 2.61E+03 4.74E+01 − 9.91E+03 2.45E+03
F9 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
F10 8.88E−16 0.00E+00 8.88E−16 0.00E+00
F11 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
F12 1.16E−03 7.21E−03 7.33E−06 8.70E−06
F13 2.40E−02 8.76E−02 1.84E−05 1.65E−05

13
126 Page 38 of 51 R. Rani et al.

Table 14  Comparison of FDA, AO and PDO for average and standard deviation for D = 100 on 13 bench-
mark function
Benchmark FDA for D = 100 (iteration AO for D = 100 (iteration PDO for D = 100 (iteration
function 1000, population size 30) 1000, population size 30) 1000, population size 50)
Average S.D Average S.D Average S.D

F1 9.24E+01 2.75E+01 6.65E+02 3.76E+02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

F2 1.25E+01 1.29E+01 6.24E+01 1.07E+01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
F3 5.14E+04 1.22E+04 6.29E+05 3.33E+05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
F4 5.71E+01 3.26 6.41 1.09 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
F5 2.64E+04 1.07E+04 7.10E+05 2.37E+05 98.98E+00 0.004E+00
F6 4.24E+07 2.04E+05 4.70E+07 1.10E+06 20.64E+00 3.02E+00
F7 1.83 2.31E−01 5.96E−02 8.17E−02 1.28E−06 1.26E−05
F8 − 4.00E+04 2.82E+03 − 4.00E+04 5.02E+03 − 14.69E+00 1270.30E+00
F9 4.87E+02 5.68E+01 6.47E+01 2.40E+01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
F10 1.97E+01 2.61E−01 9.20 8.72E−01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
F11 1.99E+01 8.78 2.09E+02 2.52E+02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
F12 1.29E+03 1.40E+03 9.23E+02 2.73E+03 0.29E+00 0.23E+00
F13 4.10E+10 0.00E+00 4.75E+10 1.56E+10 9.81E+00 5.00E+00

this purpose, we have found eight engineering problems and take the common algo-
rithms for each problem from Table 1 to compare the performance of these algorithms.
Tables 3 and 4 show that AO gives best result for WBD and TSD problem. Tables 5, 6
and 10 shows that PDO gives best result for PVD, CBD and TBTD problem. Tables 7
and 8 shows ROA gives significantly better result for IBD and REB problem. Table 9
shows that FDA gives best result for SRP problem. A summary of these results can
be seen in Table 11. A little bit more analysis has been done considering those 4 algo-
rithms mentioned in Table 11. Since all these algorithms have also been solved using
benchmark problems so their average and standard deviation are compared for solution
of 13 benchmark problems mentioned in Table 12 (Rezaei et al. 2022).The run time has
been taken as 30.
After comparing the results of Tables 13 and 14 we found that FDA and PDO give
us comparatively better results for solving single objective optimization problem. The
major difference of FDA with other algorithms is using precise strategies to assign some
interval of investigation process to global search and remaining to local search. This
rule is archived by defining an area radius that decreases from highest values to small
values, and sink filling procedure that helps to prevent from local solutions. The PDO
break search space of the problem into some coteries, and the optimization procedure is
passed out in each of the coteries. The solutions are combined, and the best solution is
selected.
Table 12 shows some commonly used unimodal and multimodal benchmark functions
which are used in all 83-researchpaper to check the efficiency of their algorithms.

13
 Table 15  Detail of 83 review papers in terms of Author name, Journal name, Impact factor and citation
S.no. Paper name Author name Journal name Impact factor (IF) Citation

1 Harris hawks optimization: Algorithm and Heidari et al. (2019) Future Generation Computing Systems 7.187 2466
applications
2 The Sailfish Optimizer: A novel nature-inspired Shadravan et al. (2019) Engineering Applications of Artificial Intel- 7.802 292
metaheuristic algorithm for solving con- ligence
strained engineering optimization problems
3 A New Meta-Heuristic Optimizer: Pathfinder Yapici and Cetinkaya (2019) Applied Soft Computing Journal 8.263 186
Algorithm
4 Seagull Optimization Algorithm: Theory and Dhiman and Kumar (2019) Knowledge-Based Systems 8.139 552
its Applications for Large Scale Industrial
Engineering Problems
5 A Novel Optimization Booster Algorithm Pakzad-Moghaddam et al. (2019) Computers & Industrial Engineering 7.18 12
6 Henry gas solubility optimization: a novel Hashim et al. (2019) Future Generation Computer Systems 7.307 503
physics-based algorithm
7 Sea Lion Optimization Algorithm Masadeh et al. (2019) International Journal of Advanced Computer 1.092 151
A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective…

Science and Applications

8 The naked mole-rat algorithm Salgotra and Singh (2019) Neural Computing and Applications 5.102 91
9 Nuclear Reaction Optimization: A novel and Wei et al. (2019) IEEE Access 4.34 52
powerful physics-based algorithm for global
optimization
10 Atom search optimization and its application to Zhao et al. (2019) Knowledge-Based Systems 8.139 319
solve a hydrogeologic parameter estimation
proble
11 A New Optimization Algorithm Based on Shabani et al. (2019) Mathematical Problems in Engineering 1.43 75
Search and Rescue Operations
12 Wildebeest herd optimization: A new global Amali and Dinakaran (2019) Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 1.737 20
optimization algorithm inspired by wildebeest
herding behavior
Page 39 of 51

13 Butterfly optimization algorithm: a novel Arora and Singh (2019) Soft Computing 4.2 804
approach for global optimization
126

13
 Table 15  (continued)
126

S.no. Paper name Author name Journal name Impact factor (IF) Citation

13
14 The blue monkey: A new nature inspired Mahmood and Al-Khateeb (2019) Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences 1.162 9
metaheuristic optimization algorithm
15 Emperor Penguins Colony: a new metaheuristic Harifi et al. (2019) Evolutionary Intelligence 2.96 106
Page 40 of 51

algorithm for optimization

16 Future search algorithm for optimization Elsisi (2019) Evolutionary Intelligence 2.96 33
17 Chimp Optimization Algorithm Khishe and Mosavi (2020) Expert Systems With Applications 8.665 394
18 Slime Mould Algorithm: A New Method for Li et al. (2023) Future Generation Computer Systems 7.307 1185
Stochastic Optimization
19 Gradient-Based Optimizer: A New Metaheuris- Ahmadianfar et al. (2020) Information Sciences 8.233 302
tic Optimization Algorithm
20 Marine Predators Algorithm: A Nature-inspired Faramarzi et al. (2020a, b) Expert Systems With Applications 8.665 829
Metaheuristic
21 A mayfly optimization algorithm Zervoudakis and Tsafarakis (2020) Computers & Industrial Engineering 7.18 301
22 Manta ray foraging optimization: An effective Zhao et al. (2020a, b) Engineering Applications of Artificial Intel- 7.802 415
bio-inspired optimizer for engineering applica- ligence
tions
23 Billiards-inspired optimization algorithm; a new Kaveh et al. (2020a, b, c) Structures 4.01 48
meta-heuristic method
24 Equilibrium optimizer: A novel optimization Faramarzi et al. (2020a, b) Knowledge-Based Systems 8.139 921
algorithm
25 Coronavirus Optimization Algorithm: A Bioin- Martínez-Álvarez et al. (2020) Big Data 10.835 87
spired Metaheuristic Based on the COVID-19
Propagation Model
26 A novel swarm intelligence optimization Xue and Shen (2020 Systems Science & Control Engineering 2.8 767
approach: sparrow search algorithm
27 Sandpiper optimization algorithm: a novel Kaur et al (2020) Applied Intelligence 5.086 32
approach for solving real-life engineering
problems
R. Rani et al.
 Table 15  (continued)
S.no. Paper name Author name Journal name Impact factor (IF) Citation

28 Black Widow Optimization Algorithm: A novel Hayyolalam and Kazem (2020) Engineering Applications of Artificial Intel- 7.802 343
meta-heuristic approach for solving engineer- ligence
ing optimization problems
29 FBI inspired meta-optimization Chou and Nguyen (2020) Applied Soft Computing Journal 8.263 73
30 Novel meta-heuristic bald eagle search optimisa- Alsattar et al. (2020) Artificial Intelligence Review 9.588 203
tion algorithm
31 A novel life choice-based optimizer Khatri et al. (2020) Soft Computing 3.732 24
32 Parameters optimization of support vector Tharwat and Gabel (2020) Neural Computing and Applications 5.102 77
machines for imbalanced data using social ski
driver algorithm
33 Artificial ecosystem-based optimization: a novel Zhao et al. (2020a, b) Neural Computing and Applications 5.102 188
nature-inspired meta-heuristic algorithm
34 Heap-based optimizer inspired by corporate rank Askari et al. (2020a, b) Expert Systems with Applications 8.665 156
hierarchy for global optimi‐ zation
A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective…

35 Color harmony algorithm: an art-inspired Zaeimi and Ghoddosian (2020) Soft Computing 3.732 23
metaheuristic for mathematical function
optimization
36 Stochastic paint optimizer: theory and applica- Kaveh et al. (2020a, b, c) Engineering with Computers 8.083 42
tion in civil engineering
37 Political Optimizer: A novel socio-inspired Askari et al. (2020a, b) Knowledge-Based Systems 8.139 208
meta-heuristic for global optimizatio
38 Water strider algorithm: A new metaheuristic Kaveh et al. (2020a, b, c) Structures 4.01 102
and applications
39 A new Newton metaheuristic algorithm for dis- Gholizadeh et al. (2020) Computers and Structures 5.372 62
crete performance-based design optimization
of steel moment frames
40 Giza Pyramids Construction: an ancient-inspired Harifi et al. (2021) Evolutionary Intelligence 2.96 50
Page 41 of 51

metaheuristic algorithm for optimization

126

13
 Table 15  (continued)
126

S.no. Paper name Author name Journal name Impact factor (IF) Citation

13
41 Gaining-sharing knowledge based algorithm Mohamed et al. (2021) International Journal of Machine Learning and 4.377 185
for solving optimization problems: a novel Cybernetics
nature-inspired algorithm
Page 42 of 51

42 African vultures optimization algorithm: A new Abdollahzadeh et al. (2021a, b) Computers & Industrial Engineering 7.18 282
nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithm for
global optimization problems
43 Remora optimization algorithm Jia et al. (2021) Expert Systems With Applications 8.665 66
44 Chameleon Swarm Algorithm: A bio-inspired Braik (2021) Expert Systems With Applications 8.665 95
optimizer for solving engineering design
problems
45 Artificial gorilla troops optimizer: A new nature‐ Abdollahzadeh et al. (2021a, b) International Journal of Intelligent Systems 8.709 235
inspired metaheuristic algorithm for global
optimization problems
46 Coronavirus herd immunity optimizer (CHIO) Al-Betar et al. (2021) Neural Computing and Applications 5.102 108
47 Flow Direction Algorithm (FDA): A Novel Karami et al. (2021) Computers & Industrial Engineering 7.18 63
Optimization Approach for Solving Optimiza-
tion Problems
48 Aquila Optimizer: A novel meta-heuristic opti- Abualigah et al. (2021a, b) Computers & Industrial Engineering 7.18 744
mization algorithm
49 QANA: Quantum-based avian navigation opti- Zamani et al. (2021) Engineering Applications of Artificial Intel- 7.802 70
mizer algorithm ligence
50 Atomic orbital search: A novel metaheuristic Azizi (2021) Applied Mathematical Modelling 5.336 91
algorithm
51 The Arithmetic Optimization Algorithm Abualigah et al. (2021a, b) Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and 6.588 934
Engineering
52 Dingo Optimizer: A Nature-Inspired Bairwa et al. (2021) Mathematical Problems in Engineering 1.43 29
Metaheuristic Approach for Engineering
Problems
R. Rani et al.
 Table 15  (continued)
S.no. Paper name Author name Journal name Impact factor (IF) Citation

53 The Red Colobuses Monkey: A New Nature– Al-Kubaisy et al. (2021) International Journal of Computational Intel- 2.259 12
Inspired Metaheuristic Optimization Algo- ligence Systems
rithm
54 Archimedes optimization algorithm: a new Hashim et al. (2021) Applied Intelligence 5.019 344
metaheuristic algorithm for solving optimiza-
tion problems
55 A novel algorithm for global optimization: Rat Dhiman et al. (2021) Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized 3.662 171
Swarm Optimizer Computing
56 Hunger games search: Visions, conception, Yang et al. (2021a, b) Expert Systems With Applications 8.665 410
implementation, deep analysis, perspectives,
and towards performance shifts
57 Horse herd optimization algorithm: A nature- MiarNaeimi et al. (2021) Knowledge-Based Systems 8.139 110
inspired algorithm for high-dimensional
optimization problems
58 Preaching-inspired swarm intelligence algorithm Wei et al. (2021) Knowledge-Based Systems 8.139 18
A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective…

and its applications

59 Battle royale optimization algorithm RahkarFarshi (2021) Neural Computing and Applications 5.102 81
60 Cat and Mouse Based Optimizer: A New Dehghani et al. (2021) Sensors 3.847 29
Nature-Inspired Optimization Algorithm
61 Tuna Swarm Optimization: A Novel Swarm- Xie et al. (2021) Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience 3.12 42
Based Metaheuristic Algorithm for Global
Optimization
62 Past present future: a new human-based algo- Naik and Satapathy (2021) Soft Computing 3.732 11
rithm for stochastic optimization
63 Aptenodytes Forsteri Optimization: Algorithm Yang et al. (2021a, b) Knowledge-Based Systems 8.139 16
and applications
64 A new evolutionary algorithm: Learner perfor- Rahman and Rashid (2021) Egyptian Informatics Journal 4.195 40
Page 43 of 51

mance based behavior algorithm

126

13
 Table 15  (continued)
126

S.no. Paper name Author name Journal name Impact factor (IF) Citation

13
65 Material Generation Algorithm: A Novel Talatahari et al. (2021) Processes 3.352 43
Metaheuristic Algorithm for Optimization of
Engineering Problems
Page 44 of 51

66 Child Drawing Development Optimization Abdulhameed and Rashid (2022) Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering 2.807 18
Algorithm Based on Child’s Cognitive Devel-
opment
67 Bonobo optimizer (BO): an intelligent heuristic Das and Pratihar (2022) Applied Intelligence 5.019 33
with self-adjusting parameters over continu-
ous spaces and its applications to engineering
problems
68 Reptile Search Algorithm (RSA): A nature- Abualigah et al. (2022) Expert Systems With Applications 8.665 326
inspired meta-heuristic optimizer
69 A new human-based metaheuristic algorithm for Dehghani et al. (2022) Scientifc Reports 4.379 10
solving optimization problems on the base of
simulation of driving training process
70 Pelican Optimization Algorithm: A Novel Trojovský and Dehghani (2022) Sensors 3.847 45
Nature-Inspired Algorithm for Engineering
Applications
71 Circulatory System Based Optimization Ghasemi et al. (2022) Engineering Applications of Computational 8.391 4
(CSBO): an expert multilevel biologically Fluid Mechanics
inspired metaheuristic algorithm
72 The cheetah optimizer: a nature-inspired Akbari et al. (2022) Scientifc Reports 4.379 5
metaheuristic algorithm for large-scale optimi-
zation problems
73 Prairie Dog Optimization Algorithm Ezugwu et al. (2022) Neural Computing and Applications 5.102 41
74 Gazelle optimization algorithm: a novel nature- Agushaka et al. (2022) Neural Computing and Applications 5.102 6
inspired metaheuristic optimizer
R. Rani et al.
 Table 15  (continued)
S.no. Paper name Author name Journal name Impact factor (IF) Citation

75 Mountain Gazelle Optimizer: A new Nature- Abdollahzadehet al. (2022) Advances in Engineering Software 4.255 3
inspired Metaheuristic Algorithm for Global
Optimization Problems
76 A new human-based metahurestic optimization Trojovská and Dehghani (2022) Scientifc Reports 4.379 5
method based on mimicking cooking training
77 Hunter–prey optimization: algorithm and Naruei et al. (2022) Soft Computing 3.732 18
applications
78 A novel swarm intelligence algorithm inspired Kivi and Majidnezhad (2022) Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized 3.662 12
by the grazing of sheep Computing
79 Wild horse optimizer: a new meta-heuristic Naruei and Keynia (2022) Engineering with Computers 8.083 87
algorithm for solving engineering optimization
problems
80 Pair barracuda swarm optimization algorithm: a Guo et al. (2023) Scientific Reports 4.6 1
natural-inspired metaheuristic method for high
dimensional optimization problems
A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective…

81 A Knowledge based Meta-heuristic knowledge- Kapoor et al. (2023) Journal of Engineering Mathematics 1.444 0
based for solving multi-objective optimization
problems
82 Leopard seal optimization (LSO): a natural Rabie et al. (2023a, b) Communications in Nonlinear Science and 3.9 5
inspired meta-heuristic algorithm Numerical Simulation
83 Red piranha optimization RPO): a natural Rabie et al. (2023a, b) Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized 6.163 3
inspired meta-heuristic algorithm for solving Computing
complex optimization problems
Page 45 of 51
126

13
 126 Page 46 of 51 R. Rani et al.

5 Bibliographic analysis

From previous section we concluded that FDA and PDO are better as compare to other
advanced NIA for solving single objective optimization problems. We also have done some
bibliographic analysis to verify our results. The same can be seen in Table 15. Serial Num-
ber. 43, 47, 48 and 73 are the details of NIA algorithms ROA (IF 8.665, Citation 66) FDA
(IF 7.18, Citation 63), AO (IF 7.18, Citation 744) and PDA (IF 5.10 and Citation 41). From
this table also we can conclude that all four algorithms (ROA, FDA, AO and PDO) are rea-
sonable have good citation and impact factor. Overall, our analysis suggests that out of 83
algorithms, FDA and PDO are better to solve single objective optimization problem.

6 Conclusion and future work

This paper reviewed the recent developed the nature-inspired algorithm from the year
2019 to 2023. The goal of this study is to identify the best nature-inspired algorithms to
tackle the constrained and other optimization problems, and for that we considered the
83 well-known algorithms that were found between 2019 and 2023. We have selected
eight common benchmark engineering design optimization problems from 83 research
publications and compared their solutions of all standard algorithms to these problems in
order to access their performance. From the analysis, it is determined that AO provides
the best solution for WBD and TSD problems, PDO provides the best solution for PVD,
CBD and TBTD problems, ROA provides the best solution for IBD and REB problems,
while FDA give best result for SRP problem. Further, to determine, which algorithm from
AO, FDA, ROA and PDO is the best, more analysis is done by considering the benchmark
CEC problems. From the analysis, it is concluded that FDA and PDA are more effective at
solving the large-scale optimization problems among the available 83 different algorithms.
In the future, we shall extend our research to analyze more on this issue and their
application to diverse field such as object detection (Zhang et al. 2023), feature selection
problem (Liu et al. 2023), neural network, control design problems (Govindan et al. 2023),
resource-constrained (Xuemin et al. 2023). One may try to apply these algorithms on multi
objective optimization problems (Cao et al. 2020b) and they may be clubbed with machine
learning to improve the efficiency.

Author contributions A.B. Ms Rekha and Dr Sarika has written the manuscript.B and C. Dr. Sarika and Dr.
Harish has given proper guidance to her time to time. How to write paper, all figures and tables guidance
has been provided by them.All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Data availability No data were used to support the study.

Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by
any of the authors.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long

13
A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective… Page 47 of 51 126

as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.

References
Abdollahzadeh B, Gharehchopogh FS, Mirjalili S (2021a) African vultures optimization algorithm: a
new nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithm for global optimization problems. Comput Ind Eng
158:107408
Abdollahzadeh B, SoleimanianGharehchopogh F, Mirjalili S (2021b) Artificial gorilla troops optimizer:
a new nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithm for global optimization problems. Int J Intell Syst
36(10):5887–5958
Abdollahzadeh B, Gharehchopogh FS, Khodadadi N, Mirjalili S (2022) Mountain gazelle optimizer: a
new nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithm for global optimization problems. Adv Eng Softw
174:103282
Abdulhameed S, Rashid TA (2022) Child drawing development optimization algorithm based on child’s
cognitive development. Arab J Sci Eng 47(2):1337–1351
Abualigah L, Diabat A, Mirjalili S, Abd Elaziz M, Gandomi AH (2021a) The arithmetic optimization algo-
rithm. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 376:113609
Abualigah L, Yousri D, Abd Elaziz M, Ewees AA, Al-Qaness MA, Gandomi AH (2021b) Aquila optimizer:
a novel meta-heuristic optimization algorithm. Comput Ind Eng 157:107250
Abualigah L, Abd Elaziz M, Sumari P, Geem ZW, Gandomi AH (2022) Reptile search algorithm (RSA): a
nature-inspired meta-heuristic optimizer. Expert Syst Appl 191:116158
Agrawal P, Abutarboush HF, Ganesh T, Mohamed AW (2021) Metaheuristic algorithms on feature selec-
tion: a survey of one decade of research (2009–2019). IEEE Access 9:26766–26791
Agushaka JO, Ezugwu AE, Abualigah L (2022) Gazelle optimization algorithm: a novel nature-inspired
metaheuristic optimizer. Neural Comput Appl 1:1–33
Ahmadianfar I, Bozorg-Haddad O, Chu X (2020) Gradient-based optimizer: a new metaheuristic optimiza-
tion algorithm. Inf Sci 540:131–159
Akbari MA, Zare M, Azizipanah-Abarghooee R, Mirjalili S, Deriche M (2022) The cheetah optimizer: a
nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithm for large-scale optimization problems. Sci Rep 12(1):1–20
Al-Betar MA, AlyasseriZAA AMA, Abu Doush I (2021) Coronavirus herd immunity optimizer (CHIO).
Neural Comput Appl 33(10):5011–5042
Al-kubaisy WJ, Yousif M, Al-Khateeb B, Mahmood M, Le DN (2021) The red colobuses monkey: a new
nature–inspired metaheuristic optimization algorithm. Int J Comput Intell Syst 14(1):1108–1118
Alsattar HA, Zaidan AA, Zaidan BB (2020) Novel meta-heuristic bald eagle search optimisation algorithm.
Artif Intell Rev 53(3):2237–2264
Amali D, Dinakaran M (2019) Wildebeest herd optimization: a new global optimization algorithm inspired
by wildebeest herding behaviour. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 37(6):8063–8076
Arora S, Singh S (2019) Butterfly optimization algorithm: a novel approach for global optimization. Soft
Comput 23(3):715–734
Askari Q, Saeed M, Younas I (2020a) Heap-based optimizer inspired by corporate rank hierarchy for global
optimization. Expert Syst Appl 161:113702
Askari Q, Younas I, Saeed M (2020b) Political optimizer: a novel socio-inspired meta-heuristic for global
optimization. Knowl Based Syst 195:105709
Azizi M (2021) Atomic orbital search: a novel metaheuristic algorithm. Appl Math Model 93:657–683
Bairwa AK, Joshi S, Singh D (2021) Dingo optimizer: a nature-inspired metaheuristic approach for engi-
neering problems. Math Probl Eng 2021:2571863. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2021/​25718​63
Braik MS (2021) Chameleon swarm algorithm: a bio-inspired optimizer for solving engineering design
problems. Expert Syst Appl 174:114685
Cao B, Zhao J, Gu Y, Ling Y, Ma X (2020a) Applying graph-based differential grouping for multiobjective
large-scale optimization. Swarm Evol Comput 53:100626

13
 126 Page 48 of 51 R. Rani et al.

Cao B, Zhao J, Yang P, Gu Y, Muhammad K, Rodrigues JJPC, de Albuquerque VHC (2020b) Multiobjec-
tive 3-D topology optimization of next-generation wireless data center network. IEEE Trans Ind Inf
16(5):3597–3605
Cao B, Gu Y, Lv Z, Yang S, Zhao J, Li Y (2021) RFID reader anticollision based on distributed parallel
particle swarm optimization. IEEE Internet Things J 8(5):3099–3107
Cao B, Li Z, Liu X, Lv Z, He H (2023) Mobility-aware multiobjective task offloading for vehicular edge
computing in digital twin environment. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 41(10):3046–3055
Chen H, Li C, Mafarja M, Heidari AA, Chen Y, Cai Z (2023) Slime mould algorithm: a comprehensive
review of recent variants and applications. Int J Syst Sci 54(1):204–235
Chou JS, Nguyen NM (2020) FBI inspired meta-optimization. Appl Soft Comput 93:106339
Das AK, Pratihar DK (2022) Bonobo optimizer (BO): an intelligent heuristic with self-adjusting parameters
over continuous spaces and its applications to engineering problems. Appl Intell 52(3):2942–2974
Dehghani M, Hubálovský Š, Trojovský P (2021) Cat and mouse based optimizer: a new nature-inspired
optimization algorithm. Sensors 21(15):5214
Dehghani M, Trojovská E, Trojovský P (2022) A new human-based metaheuristic algorithm for solving
optimization problems on the base of simulation of driving training process. Sci Rep 12(1):1–21
Dhiman G, Kumar V (2019) Seagull optimization algorithm: theory and its applications for large-scale
industrial engineering problems. Knowl Based Syst 165:169–196
Dhiman G, Garg M, Nagar A, Kumar V, Dehghani M (2021) A novel algorithm for global optimiza-
tion: rat swarm optimizer. J Amb Intell Hum Comput 12(8):8457–8482. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s12652-​020-​02580-0
Dokeroglu T, Sevinc E, Kucukyilmaz T, Cosar A (2019) A survey on new generation metaheuristic algo-
rithms. Comput Ind Eng 137:106040
Elsisi M (2019) Future search algorithm for optimization. Evol Intell 12(1):21–31
Ezugwu AE, Agushaka JO, Abualigah L, Mirjalili S, Gandomi AH (2022) Prairie dog optimization algo-
rithm. Neural Comput Appl 34:1–49
Faramarzi A, Heidarinejad M, Mirjalili S, Gandomi AH (2020a) Marine predators algorithm: a nature-
inspired metaheuristic. Expert Syst Appl 152:113377
Faramarzi A, Heidarinejad M, Stephens B, Mirjalili S (2020b) Equilibrium optimizer: a novel optimization
algorithm. Knowl Based Syst 191:105190
Gharehchopogh FS, Ibrikci T (2023) An improved African vultures optimization algorithm using different
fitness functions for multi-level thresholding image segmentation. Multimed Tools Appl 83:1–47
Gharehchopogh FS, Abdollahzadeh B, Barshandeh S, Arasteh B (2023) A multi-objective mutation-based
dynamic Harris Hawks optimization for botnet detection in IoT. Internet Things 24:100952
Ghasemi M, Akbari MA, Jun C, Bateni SM, Zare M, Zahedi A, Chau KW (2022) Circulatory system based
optimization (CSBO): an expert multilevel biologically inspired meta-heuristic algorithm. Eng Appl
Comput Fluid Mech 16(1):1483–1525
Gholizadeh S, Danesh M, Gheyratmand C (2020) A new Newton metaheuristic algorithm for discrete per-
formance-based design optimization of steel moment frames. Comput Struct 234:106250
Govindan V, Jayaprakash J, Park C, Lee JR, Cangul IN (2023) Optimization-based design and control of
dynamic systems. Babylonian J Math 2023:30–35. https://​doi.​org/​10.​58496/​BJM/​2023/​006
Guo J, Zhou G, Yan K, Sato Y, Di Y (2023) Pair barracuda swarm optimization algorithm: a natural-
inspired metaheuristic method for high dimensional optimization problems. Sci Rep 13(1):18314
Hajipour V, Mehdizadeh E, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R (2014) A novel pareto-based multi-objective vibra-
tion damping optimization algorithm to solve multi-objective optimization problems. Sci Iran
21(6):2368–2378
Hajipour V, Kheirkhah A, Tavana M, Absi N (2015) Novel pareto-based meta-heuristics for solving multi-
objective multi-item capacitated lot-sizing problems. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 80:31–45
Harifi S, Khalilian M, Mohammadzadeh J, Ebrahimnejad S (2019) Emperor penguins colony: a new
metaheuristic algorithm for optimization. Evol Intel 12(2):211–226
Harifi S, Mohammadzadeh J, Khalilian M, Ebrahimnejad S (2021) Giza pyramids construction: an ancient-
inspired metaheuristic algorithm for optimization. Evol Intel 14(4):1743–1761
Hashim FA, Houssein EH, Mabrouk MS, Al-Atabany W, Mirjalili S (2019) Henry gas solubility optimiza-
tion: a novel physics-based algorithm. Futur Gener Comput Syst 101:646–667
Hashim FA, Hussain K, Houssein EH, Mabrouk MS, Al-Atabany W (2021) Archimedes optimization algo-
rithm: a new metaheuristic algorithm for solving optimization problems. Appl Intell 51(3):1531–1551
Hayyolalam V, Kazem AAP (2020) Black widow optimization algorithm: a novel meta-heuristic approach
for solving engineering optimization problems. Eng Appl Artif Intell 87:103249
Heidari AA, Mirjalili S, Faris H, Aljarah I, Mafarja M, Chen H (2019) Harris hawks optimization: algo-
rithm and applications. Futur Gener Comput Syst 97:849–872

13
A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective… Page 49 of 51 126

Janga Reddy M, Nagesh Kumar D (2020) Evolutionary algorithms, swarm intelligence methods, and their
applications in water resources engineering: a state-of-the-art review. H2Open J 3(1):135–188
Jia H, Peng X, Lang C (2021) Remora optimization algorithm. Expert Syst Appl 185:115665
Kapoor M, Pathak BK, Kumar R (2023) A nature-inspired meta-heuristic knowledge-based algorithm for
solving multiobjective optimization problems. J Eng Math 143(1):5
Karami H, Anaraki MV, Farzin S, Mirjalili S (2021) Flow direction algorithm (FDA): a novel optimization
approach for solving optimization problems. Comput Ind Eng 156:107224
Kaur A, Jain S, Goel S (2020) Sandpiper optimization algorithm: a novel approach for solving real-life engi-
neering problems. Appl Intell 50(2):582–619
Kaveh A, Eslamlou AD, Khodadadi N (2020a) Dynamic water strider algorithm for optimal design of skel-
etal structures. Period Polytech Civil Eng 64(3):904–916
Kaveh A, Khanzadi M, Moghaddam MR (2020b) Billiards-inspired optimization algorithm; a new meta-
heuristic method. Structures 27:1722–1739
Kaveh A, Talatahari S, Khodadadi N (2020c) Stochastic paint optimizer: theory and application in civil
engineering. Eng Comput 1:1–32
Khan W (2013) Image segmentation techniques: a survey. J Image Graph 1(4):166–170
Khatri A, Gaba A, Rana KPS, Kumar V (2020) A novel life choice-based optimizer. Soft Comput
24(12):9121–9141
Khishe M, Mosavi MR (2020) Chimp optimization algorithm. Expert Syst Appl 149:113338
Kivi ME, Majidnezhad V (2022) A novel swarm intelligence algorithm inspired by the grazing of sheep. J
Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 13(2):1201–1213
Li S, Chen H, Chen Y, Xiong Y, Song Z (2023) Hybrid method with parallel-factor theory, a support vec-
tor machine, and particle filter optimization for intelligent machinery failure identification. Machines
11(8):837. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​machi​nes11​080837
Liu X, Wang S, Lu S, Yin Z, Li X, Yin L, Zheng W (2023) Adapting feature selection algorithms for the
classification of Chinese texts. Systems 11(9):483. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​syste​ms110​90483
Mahmood M, Al-Khateeb B (2019) The blue monkey: a new nature inspired metaheuristic optimization
algorithm. Period Eng Nat Sci 7(3):1054–1066
Mandal PK (2023) A review of classical methods and nature-inspired algorithms (NIAs) for optimization
problems. Results Control Optimiz 13:100315
Martínez-Álvarez F, Asencio-Cortés G, Torres JF, Gutiérrez-Avilés D, Melgar-García L, Pérez-Chacón R,
Troncoso A (2020) Coronavirus optimization algorithm: a bioinspired metaheuristic based on the
COVID-19 propagation model. Big Data 8(4):308–322
Masadeh R, Mahafzah BA, Sharieh A (2019) Sea lion optimization algorithm. Int J Adv Comput Sci
Appl 10(5):2019. https://​doi.​org/​10.​14569/​IJACSA.​2019.​01005​48
MiarNaeimi F, Azizyan G, Rashki M (2021) Horse herd optimization algorithm: a nature-inspired algo-
rithm for high-dimensional optimization problems. Knowl Based Syst 213:106711
Mohamed AW, Abutarboush HF, HadiAA MAK (2021) Gaining-sharing knowledge based algorithm
with adaptive parameters for engineering optimization. IEEE Access 9:65934–65946
Mou J, Gao K, Duan P, Li J, Garg A, Sharma R (2023) A machine learning approach for energy-efficient
intelligent transportation scheduling problem in a real-world dynamic circumstances. IEEE Trans
Intell Transp Syst 24(12):15527–15539
Muazu AA, Hashim AS, Sarlan A (2022) Review of nature inspired metaheuristic algorithm selection
for combinatorial t-way testing. IEEE Access 10:27404–27431
Naik A, Satapathy SC (2021) Past present future: a new human-based algorithm for stochastic optimiza-
tion. Soft Comput 25(20):12915–12976
Naruei I, Keynia F (2022) Wild horse optimizer: a new meta-heuristic algorithm for solving engineering
optimization problems. Eng Comput 38(4):3025–3056
Naruei I, Keynia F, Sabbagh Molahosseini A (2022) Hunter–prey optimization: algorithm and applica-
tions. Soft Comput 26(3):1279–1314
Nayak SK (2023) Nature inspired algorithms in dynamic task scheduling: a review. World J Adv Res
Rev 20(2):829–833
Pakzad-Moghaddam SH, Mina H, Mostafazadeh P (2019) A novel optimization booster algorithm. Com-
put Ind Eng 136:591–613
Rabie AH, Mansour NA, Saleh AI (2023a) Leopard seal optimization (LSO): a natural inspired meta-
heuristic algorithm. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 125:107338
Rabie AH, Saleh AI, Mansour NA (2023b) Red piranha optimization (RPO): a natural inspired meta-
heuristic algorithm for solving complex optimization problems. J Ambient Intell Hum Comput
14(6):7621–7648
RahkarFarshi T (2021) Battle royale optimization algorithm. Neural Comput Appl 33(4):1139–1157

13
 126 Page 50 of 51 R. Rani et al.

Rahman CM, Rashid TA (2021) A new evolutionary algorithm: learner performance based behavior
algorithm. Egypt Inform J 22(2):213–223
Rai R, Das A, Dhal KG (2022) Nature-inspired optimization algorithms and their significance in multi-
thresholding image segmentation: an inclusive review. Evol Syst 13:1–57.
Reddy MJ, Kumar DN (2012) Computational algorithms inspired by biological processes and evolution.
Curr Sci 1:370–380
Rezaei F, Safavi HR, Abd Elazi M, Abualigah L, Mirjalili S, Gandomi AH (2022) Diversity-based evo-
lutionary population dynamics: a new operator for grey wolf optimizer. Processes 10(12):2615
Salgotra R, Singh U (2019) The naked mole-rat algorithm. Neural Comput Appl 31(12):8837–8857
Shabani A, Asgarian B, Gharebaghi SA, Salido MA, Giret A (2019) A new optimization algorithm
based on search and rescue operations. Math Probl Eng 2019:1–23
Shadravan S, Naji HR, Bardsiri VK (2019) The Sailfish Optimizer: A novel nature-inspired metaheuris-
tic algorithm for solving constrained engineering optimization problems. Eng Appl Artif Intell
80:20–34
Shen Y, Zhang C, Gharehchopogh FS, Mirjalili S (2023) An improved whale optimization algorithm
based on multi-population evolution for global optimization and engineering design problems.
Expert Syst Appl 215:119269
Singh A, Sharma S, Singh J (2021) Nature-inspired algorithms for wireless sensor networks: a compre-
hensive survey. Comput Sci Rev 39:100342
Suman B, Kumar P (2006) A survey of simulated annealing as a tool for single and multiobjective opti-
mization. J Oper Res Soc 57(10):1143–1160
Talatahari S, Azizi M, Gandomi AH (2021) Material generation algorithm: a novel metaheuristic algo-
rithm for optimization of engineering problems. Processes 9(5):859
Tharwat A, Gabel T (2020) Parameters optimization of support vector machines for imbalanced data
using social ski driver algorithm. Neural Comput Appl 32(11):6925–6938
Trojovská E, Dehghani M (2022) A new human-based metahurestic optimization method based on mim-
icking cooking training. Sci Rep 12(1):1–24
Trojovský P, Dehghani M (2022) Pelican optimization algorithm: a novel nature-inspired algorithm for
engineering applications. Sensors 22(3):855
Tzanetos A, Dounias G (2021) Nature inspired optimization algorithms or simply variations of
metaheuristics. Artif Intell Rev 54(3):1841–1862
Vinod Chandra SS, Anand HS (2022) Nature inspired meta heuristic algorithms for optimization prob-
lems. Computing 104(2):251–269
Wang C, Qian Y, Shaic S (2021) The applications of nature-inspired algorithms in logistic domains: a com-
prehensive and systematic review. Arab J Sci Eng 46(4):3443–3464
Wei Z, Huang C, Wang X, Han T, Li Y (2019) Nuclear reaction optimization: a novel and powerful physics-
based algorithm for global optimization. IEEE Access 7:66084–66109
Wei D, Wang Z, Si L, Tan C (2021) Preaching-inspired swarm intelligence algorithm and its applications.
Knowl Based Syst 211:106552
Xie L, Han T, Zhou H, Zhang ZR, Han B, Tang A (2021) Tuna swarm optimization: a novel swarm-based
metaheuristic algorithm for global optimization. Comput Intell Neurosci. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​
2021/​92100​50
Xu X, Lin Z, Li X, Shang C, Shen Q (2022) Multi-objective robust optimisation model for MDVRPLS
in refined oil distribution. Int J Prod Res 60(22):6772–6792. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00207​543.​2021.​
18875​34
Xue J, Shen B (2020) A novel swarm intelligence optimization approach: sparrow search algorithm. Syst
Sci Control Eng 8(1):22–34
Xuemin Z, Ying R, Zenggang X, Haitao D, Fang X et al (2023) Resource-constrained and socially self-
ish-based incentive algorithm for socially aware networks. J Signal Process Syst Signal Image Video
Technol 95(12):1439–1453. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11265-​023-​01896-2
Yang XS (2020) Nature-inspired optimization algorithms: challenges and open problems. J Comput Sci
46:101104
Yang Y, Chen H, Heidari AA, Gandomi AH (2021a) Hunger games search: visions, conception, implemen-
tation, deep analysis, perspectives, and towards performance shifts. Expert Syst Appl 177:114864
Yang Z, Deng L, Wang Y, Liu J (2021b) Aptenodytes forsteri optimization: algorithm and applications.
Knowl Based Syst 232:107483
Yapici H, Cetinkaya N (2019) A new meta-heuristic optimizer: pathfinder algorithm. Appl Soft Comput
78:545–568
Zaeimi M, Ghoddosian A (2020) Color harmony algorithm: an art-inspired metaheuristic for mathematical
function optimization. Soft Comput 24(16):12027–12066

13
A review of nature‑inspired algorithms on single‑objective… Page 51 of 51 126

Zamani H, Nadimi-Shahraki MH, Gandomi AH (2021) QANA: quantum-based avian navigation optimizer
algorithm. Eng Appl Artif Intell 104:104314
Zervoudakis K, Tsafarakis S (2020) A mayfly optimization algorithm. Comput Ind Eng 145:106559
Zhang L, Li Y, Nevatia R (2008) Global data association for multi-object tracking using network flows. In:
2008 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. IEEE, pp 1–8
Zhang R, Li L, Zhang Q, Zhang J, Xu L, Zhang B, Wang B (2023) Differential feature awareness network
within antagonistic learning for infrared-visible object detection. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video
Technol. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​TCSVT.​2023.​32891​42
Zhao W, Wang L, Zhang Z (2019) Atom search optimization and its application to solve a hydrogeologic
parameter estimation problem. Knowl Based Syst 163:283–304
Zhao W, Wang L, Zhang Z (2020a) Artificial ecosystem-based optimization: a novel nature-inspired meta-
heuristic algorithm. Neural Comput Appl 32(13):9383–9425
Zhao W, Zhang Z, Wang L (2020b) Manta ray foraging optimization: an effective bio-inspired optimizer for
engineering applications. Eng Appl Artif Intell 87:103300
Zhu B, Sun Y, Zhao J, Han J, Zhang P, Fan T (2023) A critical scenario search method for intelligent
vehicle testing based on the social cognitive optimization algorithm. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst
24(8):7974–7986

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13