Artificial Intelligence Review (2023) 56:287–363

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-022-10173-w

Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm

Mahdi Azizi1 · Siamak Talatahari1,2 · Amir H. Gandomi3

Accepted: 11 March 2022 s / Published online: 25 June 2022

© The Author(s) 2022

Abstract
This study proposes the Fire Hawk Optimizer (FHO) as a novel metaheuristic algorithm
based on the foraging behavior of whistling kites, black kites and brown falcons. These
birds are termed Fire Hawks considering the specific actions they perform to catch prey in
nature, specifically by means of setting fire. Utilizing the proposed algorithm, a numerical
investigation was conducted on 233 mathematical test functions with dimensions of 2–100,
and 150,000 function evaluations were performed for optimization purposes. For com-
parison, a total of ten different classical and new metaheuristic algorithms were utilized
as alternative approaches. The statistical measurements include the best, mean, median,
and standard deviation of 100 independent optimization runs, while well-known statistical
analyses, such as Kolmogorov–Smirnov, Wilcoxon, Mann–Whitney, Kruskal–Wallis, and
Post-Hoc analysis, were also conducted. The obtained results prove that the FHO algorithm
exhibits better performance than the compared algorithms from literature. In addition, two
of the latest Competitions on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), such as CEC 2020 on
bound constraint problems and CEC 2020 on real-world optimization problems including
the well-known mechanical engineering design problems, were considered for performance
evaluation of the FHO algorithm, which further demonstrated the superior capability of the
optimizer over other metaheuristic algorithms in literature. The capability of the FHO is
also evaluated in dealing with two of the real-size structural frames with 15 and 24 stories
in which the new method outperforms the previously developed metaheuristics.

Keywords Fire Hawk optimizer · Global optimization · Metaheuristic · Real-world

problems · Competitions on evolutionary computation · Structural frame

* Amir H. Gandomi
[email protected]
Mahdi Azizi
[email protected]
Siamak Talatahari
[email protected]
1
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
2
Faculty of Engineering & Information Technology, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo,
Australia
3
Faculty of Engineering & Information Technology, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney,
Australia

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
288 M. Azizi et al.

1 Introduction

Optimization is the process of decision-making between multiple approaches to achieve

the best performance for dealing with a specific system problem. In recent decades, the
importance of optimization in performance improvements of different engineering and
economic design problems has gained increasing awareness. Specifically, the best decision
or solution for a predefined design problem is identified by evaluating different alternative
approaches. The predefined measure for the quality of a decision is considered by deter-
mining an objective function which is addressed in most of the cases as a performance
evaluation index. In other words, optimization concerns the process of selecting the best
decision among multiple alternative choices by considering the satisfaction of an objective
function.
Regarding the rapid progression of various software programs and high-speed paral-
lel processors in the computer science and technology fields, optimization has received
heightened attention especially by engineering and economic experts. However, most
calculus-based optimization algorithms are incapable of finding the global optimum solu-
tions, which is considered the main deficiency of these algorithms. For instance, gradient-
based algorithms require differentiable objective functions that are not achievable in deal-
ing with complex optimization problems. In this regard, the metaheuristic algorithms have
been proposed as successful practical methods that provide acceptable accuracy for differ-
ent optimization purposes. The history of metaheuristic algorithms (Sörensen et al. 2018)
can be broken down into five time-periods: (1) “Pre-Theoretical Period” (before 1940) had
limited formal presentation of metaheuristics; (2) “Early Period” (1940–1980) witnessed
the formal presentation of the mathematical formulation of metaheuristics; (3) “Method-
Centric Period” (1980–2000) saw the introduction and application of many metaheuristic
algorithms in different fields; (4) “Framework-Centric Period” (2000-present) observed the
utilization of metaheuristics as strong frameworks in different optimization fields; and (5)
“Scientific or Future Period” where the metaheuristics are assumed to turn into matter of
science instead of art.
Based on the developments of different metaheuristic algorithms in recent decades, four
categories can be determined by considering the main concept of these algorithms. The
first category, “Evolutionary Algorithms,” represents the algorithms that are developed
based on biological reproduction and evolution, such as the Genetic Algorithm (GA) (Hol-
land 1984), Differential Evolution (DE) (Storn and Price 1997), and Biogeography-Based
Optimizer (BBO) (Simon 2008). The second category includes the algorithms that are
developed based on “Swarm Intelligence,” such as the Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)
(Eberhart and Kennedy 1995), Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) (Dorigo et al. 1996), and
Firefly Algorithm (FA) (Yang 2012). In the third category, the “Physics-Inspired Algo-
rithms” are the Harmony Search (HS) (Geem et al. 2001), Gravitational Search Algo-
rithm (GSA) (Rashedi et al. 2009), Big-Bang Big-Crunch (BBBC) (Erol and Eksin 2006),
Charged System Search (CSS) (Kaveh and Talatahari 2010a, b, c, d), Wind Driven Opti-
mization (WDO) (Bayraktar et al. 2010), Multi-verse Algorithm (MVO) (Mirjalili et al.
2016), Rain Fall Optimization (RFO) algorithm (Aghay Kaboli et al. 2017), Chaos Game
Optimization (CGO) algorithm (Talatahari and Azizi 2020b, 2021a), Crystal Structure
Algorithm (Talatahari et al. 2021a, b, c, d, e), Material Generation Algorithm (Talatahari
et al. 2021a), and Atomic Orbital Search (Azizi 2021). In the last category, the algorithms
are developed based on the lifestyle of humans and animals and include the Bees Algorithm
(BA) (Pham et al. 2006), Imperialistic Competitive Algorithm (ICA) (Atashpaz-Gargari

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 289

and Lucas 2007), Bat Inspired Algorithm (BIA) (Yang 2010a), Sine Cosine Algorithm
(SCA) (Mirjalili 2016), Jaya Algorithm (JA) (Rao 2016), Whale Optimization Algo-
rithm (WOA) (Mirjalili and Lewis 2016), Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO) (Mirjalili et al.
2014), Harris Hawks Optimization (HHO) (Heidari et al. 2019), Butterfly Optimization
Algorithm (BOA) (Arora and Singh 2019), Pity Beetle Algorithm (PBA) (Kallioras et al.
2018), Arithmetic Optimization Algorithm (AOA) (Abualigah et al. 2021a), Aquila Opti-
mizer (AO) (Abualigah et al. 2021b), Interior search algorithm (ISA) (Gandomi 2014), and
Drone Squadron Optimization (DSO) (de Melo and Banzhaf 2018). It should be noted that
some of the standard algorithms have been improved or hybridized for specific applications
(Azizi et al. 2019a, b, 2020a, b; Sadollah et al. 2018; Talatahari and Azizi 2020a, c, 2021b;
Talatahari et al. 2021b, d, e).
In recent years, some newer metaheuristics have not yet been specifically categorized
into the mentioned classifications. For example, Hayyolalam and Pourhaji Kazem (2020)
proposed the Black Widow Optimization (BWO) algorithm, which mimics the unique mat-
ing behavior of black widow spiders in nature. Nematollahi et al. (2020) developed the
Golden Ratio Optimization Method (GROM) as a novel metaheuristic algorithm inspired
by the golden ratio of plant and animal growth in nature. Zhang and Jin (2020) presented
the Group Teaching Optimization Algorithm (GTOA) that mimics the group teach-
ing mechanism of humans. Li and Tam (2020) developed the Virus Spread Optimization
(VSO) as a novel metaheuristic algorithm inspired by the spread of viruses among hosts.
Alsattar et al. (2020) proposed the Bald Eagle Search (BES) algorithm for optimum design
purposes in which the hunting intelligence and strategy of bald eagles in searching fishes
is followed. Feng et al. (2021) presented the Cooperation Search Algorithm (CSA), which
is motivated by the team cooperation behaviors in modern enterprises. Ghasemian et al.
(2020) developed the Human Urbanization Algorithm (HUA) as a new metaheuristic algo-
rithm that mimics the human behaviors and actions for improving life situations and urban-
ization. Kaveh et al. (2020) proposed the Black Hole Mechanics Optimization (BHMO)
for optimization purposes, which is based on the mechanics of black holes in space. Braik
et al. (2021) presented Capuchin Search (CSA) as a novel metaheuristic algorithm for opti-
mum design purposes based on the dynamic behavior of capuchin monkeys. Ahmia and
Aider (2019) developed Monarchy Metaheuristic (MN) for optimization purposes that is
inspired by the monarchy government system. Brammya et al. (2019) proposed the Deer
Hunting Optimization Algorithm (DHOA) as an optimization algorithm, which consid-
ers the behavior humans exhibit when hunting deer. Besides, the most important applica-
tion of these algorithms can be in dealing with engineering design problems including the
stress-based topology optimization by Xia et al. (2018), material and shape optimization of
structures by Wang et al. (2020), structural engineering design by Zhao et al. (2018), opti-
mization of phase change material and insulation layer thickness (Daqiqnia et al. 2021),
performance-based structural design optimization by Gholizadeh et al. (2020), and Opti-
mal design of structures by Gholizadeh and Salajegheh (2009).
In this paper, the Fire Hawk Optimizer (FHO) is proposed as a novel metaheuris-
tic algorithm inspired by the foraging behavior of whistling kites, black kites, and
brown falcons. These birds catch prey in nature by means of setting fire and, thus, are
aptly called Fire Hawks. A numerical investigation was conducted to evaluate the per-
formance of the FHO algorithm by considering 233 mathematical test functions with
dimensions of 2–100 and completing 150,000 function evaluations for optimization
purposes. For comparative purposes, a total number of 10 different classical and new
metaheuristic algorithms were analyzed as alternative approaches. The best, mean,
median and standard deviation results of 100 independent optimization runs were

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
290 M. Azizi et al.

obtained for comparison, and Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS) test, Wilcoxon (W) sign rank
test, Mann Whitney (MW) test, Kruskal Wallis (KW) test, and Post Hoc (PH) analyses
were conducted accordingly. Moreover, two of the latest Competitions on Evolutionary
Computation (CEC), including CEC 2020 on bound constraint problems and CEC 2020
on real-world optimization problems, were utilized for further performance evaluation
of the FHO algorithm and comparison to other metaheuristic algorithms in the litera-
ture. The capability of the FHO is also evaluated in dealing with two of the real-size
structural frames with 15 and 24 stories in which the new method outperforms the pre-
viously developed metaheuristics.
This research’s novelty can be seen from inspirational and computational points of
view. The foraging behavior of fire hawks is utilized for the first time in this paper for
developing a novel metaheuristic algorithm. Besides, the complexity level of the uti-
lized test functions is also a different novelty aspect of this paper. It should be noted
that the overall performance of numerous algorithms must be evaluated under the same
conditions and with similar problems, and under diverse cases, the superiority of each
algorithm cannot be proved or disproved by means of different examples and datasets.
In this regard, the benchmark test functions of well-known competitions on evolutionary
computation should be utilized for having a fair judgment so the capability of FHO as
a novel algorithm has been evaluated by utilization of different sets of CEC test prob-
lems. This level of complexity in choosing test factions have been utilized for the first
time in evaluating novel algorithms. However, the FHO algorithm’s advantages include
being parameter-free, having quick convergence behaviour, and having the lowest pos-
sible objective function evaluations in dealing with different design examples. On the
other hand, it cannot produce accurate answers; in other words, the FHO algorithm is
an approximation algorithm like other metaheuristic algorithms. Nonetheless, a pleth-
ora of metaheuristic algorithms has been proposed through miscellaneous inspirational
concepts from nature, which the mathematical models and the specific aspects of the
algorithms in their searching groups should be distinct and novel so as to prepare and
backup the research from the stable point. PSO, for example, is one of the pioneer algo-
rithms in the metaheuristic area, in which the position updating process by the solution
candidates is conducted using the global best and local best of each particle. In stark
contrast, in the FHO algorithm, the position updating process is carried out by utilizing
the better solution’s not the global best, and the mean of the solution candidates, which
makes the searching process avoid entrapping in local optimum points. Furthermore,
in the Genetic Algorithm (GA), a new solution candidate is created by combining two
populations, so there is a possibility of reaching a solution that can be entrapped in the
local optimum point. However, in the FHO algorithm, the mean of solution candidates
in the specific territory is utilized to avoid entrapment in the local optimum and provide
solutions that can finally reach the global optimum.
The main contribution of this paper is as follows:

• Fire Hawks bizarre behaviour spread fire intentionally by carrying burning sticks in
their beaks, and talons are examined and analysed to develop a mathematical model.
• A unique nature-inspired FHO algorithm is developed using this model.
• The FHO algorithm’s solution updating depends on the preys’ new position and safe
places under/outside the fire.
• FHO’s performance is extensively evaluated against a set of 233 benchmark functions
and well-known CEC design examples. It is compared to a plethora of state-of-the-art
metaheuristic algorithms.

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 291

The rest of the paper is divided into the following sections. In Sect. 2, the inspiration
and mathematical model of the proposed FHO algorithm are presented. The numerical
investigations, including the mathematical test functions, are indicated in Sect. 3. Alter-
native Metaheuristic algorithms used in this paper are described in Sect. 4. Furthermore,
numerical results of the mathematical functions, statistical analysis, bound constraint
benchmark problems of CEC 2020, and computational complexity and cost analysis are
demonstrated in Sects. 5, 6, 7, and 8, respectively. Sections 9 and 10 indicate real-world
constrained optimization problems of CEC 2020 and structural optimization, respectively.
Finally, in Sect. 11, the core findings of this study are presented as concluding remarks.

2 Fire Hawk optimizer (FHO)

In this section, the inspiration concept of the FHO alongside the mathematical model of the
proposed metaheuristic algorithm are illustrated.

2.1 Inspiration

Native Australians utilize fire as an effective tool to control and maintain balance of the
local ecosystem and landscape, which has been a part of cultural and ethnical traditions for
many years. Most of the time, the fires that are started on purpose or may naturally occur
due to lightning can be spread by people and other factors, increasing the vulnerability of
the native landscape and wildlife. Moreover, whistling kites, black kites, and brown falcons
are also responsible for spreading fires across the country—this alternative cause has only
been realized recently. These birds, known as Fire Hawks, try to spread fire intentionally by
carrying burning sticks in their beaks and talons, which is reported as a destructive phenom-
enon in nature. Figure 1 provides images showing the behavior of these birds around fires.
As a mechanism to control and capture their prey, the birds pick up burning sticks and
drop them in other unburned places in order to set small fires. These small fires scare the
prey, including rodents, snakes, and other animals, and force them flee in a most hasty and
nervous way that makes it much easier for the hawks to catch.

2.2 Mathematical model

The FHO metaheuristic algorithm mimics the foraging behavior of fire hawks, considering
the process of setting and spreading fires and catching prey. At first, a number of solution
candidates ( X) are determined as the position vectors of the fire hawks and prey. A ran-
dom initialization process is utilized to identify the initial positions of these vectors in the
search space.

⎡ X1 ⎤ ⎡ x1 x1 ⋯ x1 ⋯ x1 ⎤
1 2 j d
⎢
⎢ X2 ⎥ ⎢ x1 x2 ⋯ xj ⋯ xd ⎥
⎢ ⎥ 2 2 2 2 ⎥ �
⋮ ⎥ ⎢ ⋮⋮⋮⋱⋮ ⎥ i = 1, 2, … , N.
X=⎢ =⎢ 1 2 ⎥, (1)
⎢ Xi ⎥ ⎢ xi xi ⋯ xji ⋯ xdi ⎥
j = 1, 2, … , d.
⎢ ⋮ ⎥ ⎢ ⋮⋮⋮⋱⋮ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ XN ⎦ ⎢⎣ x1 x2 ⋯ xj ⋯ xd ⎥
N N N N⎦

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
292 M. Azizi et al.

Fig. 1  Photographs of Fire Hawks’ behavior around fires: a www.​theag​gie.​org. b www.​daily​mail.​co.​uk. c

www.​twitt​er.​com

( ) { i = 1, 2, … , N.
j j j j
xi (0) = xi,min + rand. xi,max − xi,min ,
j = 1, 2, … , d. (2)

where Xi represents the ith solution candidate in the search space;d represents the dimen-
sion of the considered problem; N is the total number of solution candidates in the search
space; xi is the jth decision variable of the ith solution candidate; xi (0) represents the initial
j j

position of the solution candidates; xi,min and xi,max are the minimum and maximum bounds
j j

of the jth decision variable for the ith solution candidate; and rand is a uniformly distrib-
uted random number in the range of [0,1].
In order to determine the locations the Fire Hawks in the search space, the objective
function evaluation for the solution candidates considers the selected optimization prob-
lem. Some of the solution candidates with better objective function values are represented
as Fire Hawks, while the rest of the solution candidates are the prey. The selected Fire
Hawks are utilized for spreading fires around the prey in the search space to make the

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 293

hunting easier. Besides, the global best solution is assumed to be the main fire that is first
utilized by the Fire Hawks to spread fires through the search space (nature). In Fig. 2a,
b, the schematic presentation of these aspects is provided, which are mathematically pre-
sented as follows: ⎡ PR1 ⎤
⎢ PR2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⋮ ⎥
PR = ⎢ , k = 1, 2, … , m, (3)
⎢ PRk ⎥
⎢ ⋮ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ PRm ⎦

Fig. 2  Schematic presentation of determining fire hawks and prey in the search space

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
294 M. Azizi et al.

⎡ FH1 ⎤
⎢ FH2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⋮ ⎥
FH = ⎢ , l = 1, 2, … n, (4)
⎢ FHl ⎥
⎢ ⋮ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ FHn ⎦

where PRk is the kth prey in the search space regarding the total number of m preys; and
FHl is the lth fire hawk considering a total number of n fire hawks in the search space.
In the next phase of the algorithm, the total distance between the Fire Hawks and the prey
is calculated. As a result, the nearest prey to each bird is determined so that the effective ter-
ritory of these birds is distinguished. It should be noted that the nearest prey to the first Fire
Hawk with the best objective function value is determined, while the territory of the other
birds are considered by means of the remaining prey. Figure 3 provides an illustration of this
perspective, where Dlk is determined by means of the following equation:
√ {
( )2 l = 1, 2, … , n.
Dlk = x2 − x1 + (y2 − y1 )2 , , (5)
k = 1, 2, … , m.

where Dlk is the total distance between the lth fire hawk and the kth prey; m is the total
number of prey in the search space; n is the total number of fire hawks in the search space;
and (x1 , y1) and (x2 , y2) represent the coordinates of the Fire Hawks and prey in the search
space.

Fig. 3  Schematic presentation for measuring the total distance between the Fire Hawks and the prey

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 295

After conducting the mentioned procedure for measuring the total distance between the
Fire Hawks and prey, the territory of these birds is distinguished by means of the nearest
prey around them. By classifying the Fire Hawks and prey, the searching process of the
algorithm is configured. It should be noted that the Fire Hawk with the better objective
function value selects the best nearest prey in the search space for its specific territory.
Then, the other Fire Hawks accomplish the next nearest prey in the search space, which
supports that the strongest Fire Hawks accomplish perform more successful hunting than
the weaker birds. In Fig. 4, the schematic presentation of determining Fire Hawks’ territory
in the search space is provided.
In the next phase of the algorithm, the Fire Hawks collect burning sticks from the main
fire in order to set fire in the selected area. In this stage, each bird picks up a burning stick
then drops it in its specific territory to force the prey to hastily flee. Meanwhile, some birds
are eager to use the burning sticks from other Fire Hawks’ territories; therefore, these two
behaviors can be utilized as position updating procedures in the main search loop of FHO,
as indicated in the following equation:
( )
FHnewl
= FHl + r1 × GB − r2 × FHNear , l = 1, 2, … , n, (6)

where FHnew
l
is the new position vector of the lth Fire Hawk ( FHl); GB is the global best
solution in the search space considered as the main fire; FHNear is one of the other Fire
Hawks in the search space; and r1 and r2 are uniformly distributed random numbers in the
range of (0, 1) for determining the movements of Fire Hawks toward the main fire and the
other Fire Hawks’ territories (see Fig. 5).

Fig. 4  Schematic presentation of determining Fire Hawks’ territory in the search space

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
296 M. Azizi et al.

Fig. 5  Schematic presentation of the Fire Hawks’ position updating process in the search space

In the next phase of the algorithm, the movement of prey inside the territory of each
Fire Hawk is considered a key aspect of animal behavior for the position updating process.
When a burning stick is dropped by a Fire Hawk, the prey decide to hide, run away, or will
run towards the Fire Hawk by mistake. These actions can be considered in the position
updating process by using the following equation:
{
( ) l = 1, 2, … , n.
PRnew
q
= PR q + r 3 × FH l − r 4 × SP l ,
q = 1, 2, … , r. (7)

where PRnewq is the new position vector of the qth prey (PRq ) surrounded by the lth Fire
Hawk ( FHl); GB is the global best solution in the search space considered as the main fire;
SPl is a safe place under the lth Fire Hawk territory; and r3 and r4 are uniformly distributed
random numbers in the range of (0, 1) for determining the movements of prey toward the
Fire Hawks and the safe place (see Fig. 6).
Besides, the prey may have movements toward the other Fire Hawks’ territory while
there is a possibility in which the preys may get closer to the Fire Hawks in the near
ambushes or even try to hide in a safer place outside the Fire Hawk’s territory in which
they are entrapped. These actions can be considered in the position updating process by
using the following equation (Fig. 7):
{
( ) l = 1, 2, … , n.
PRnew
q
= PR q + r 5 × FH Alter − r 6 × SP ,
q = 1, 2, … , r. (8)

where PRnew
q is the new position vector of the qth prey (PRq ) surrounded by the lth fire
hawk ( FHl); FHAlter is one of the other fire hawks in the search space; SP is a safe place
outside the lth Fire Hawk’s territory; r5 and r6 are uniformly distributed random numbers

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 297

Fig. 6  Schematic presentation

of the preys position updating
process inside the fire hawks’
territory

Fig. 7  Schematic presentation of the preys position updating process outside the fire hawks’ territory

in the range of (0, 1) for determining the movements of preys toward the other Fire Hawks
and the safe place outside the territory.
Based on the fact that the safe place in nature is a place that most of the animals gather
to gather in order to remain safe and sound during a hazard, the mathematical presentation
of SPl and SP are formulated as follows:
∑r
q=1
PRq � q = 1, 2, … , r.
SPl = , (9)
r l = 1, 2, … , n.

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
298 M. Azizi et al.

∑m
PRk
SP = k=1
, k = 1, 2, … , m. (10)
m
where PRq is the qth prey surrounded by the lth fire hawk ( FHl); PRk is the kth prey in the
search space.
It should be noted that the territory of each fire hawk is assumed as a circular area
for schematic presentation purposes, so the exact definition of the territory is dependent
on the overall distances of the prey and the considered fire hawk. In other words, when
prey is positioned in a specific fire hawk’s territory, it is assumed to be affected by the
considered fire hawk and not the other ones, so the number of the preys and their dis-
tances to the considered fire hawk determine the limits of the territory of this fire hawk.
Meanwhile, the possibility of the preys being outside their own territory is also consid-
ered in the position updating process regarding the fact that the preys should be affected
by the fire hawks from other territories. The number of preys in each search loop is the
total number of solution candidates minus the number of fire hawks determined ran-
domly through the Brownian motion with a Gaussian distribution as one of the well-
known distributions utilized in randomization procedures.
The general aspects of FHO including the boundary violation of solution candidates
alongside the termination criterion are also considered in the mathematical model of
this algorithm. In this regard, a mathematical flag is implemented in the FHO in which a
boundary control for violating decision variables is determined while a predefined num-
ber of objective function evaluations or iterations can be utilized as termination criteria.
In Fig. 8, the pseudo-code of the FHO algorithm is provided, and Fig. 9 presents the
flowchart of this algorithm.

Fig. 8  Pseudo-code of FHO

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 299

Fig. 9  Flowchart of FHO

3 Mathematical test functions

In order to conduction a comprehensive investigation of FHO, a total of 233 mathemati-

cal test functions were collected, which are briefly described in this section. Meanwhile,
all tests to evaluate the performance of FHO algorithm were conducted using a PC with
the detailed parameters shown in Table 1. These functions have different dimensions
varying from 2 to 100 and are among the most well-known unconstrained mathemati-
cal test functions in the field of global optimization. In this selection, 117 test functions
were selected with minimum dimension of 2 and maximum dimension of 4 (F1–F117),
which are denoted “Small Scale (SS) functions” in this paper. In addition, 58 selected
functions with a dimension of 50 (F118–F175) were named “50D functions,” and 58
functions (F176–F233) with a dimension of 100 were termed “100D functions.” The
general description of these test functions are provided in Table 2, and the 3D plots are
provided in Figs. 10, 11, 12, 13. The fully-detailed mathematical presentations of these

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
300 M. Azizi et al.

Table 1  Details of the utilized Name Detailed settings

system in optimization process in
the current study
Hardware
CPU CORE i7
Frequency 2.8 GHz
RAM 8 GB
Hard drive 2 TB
Software
Operating system Windows 10
Language MATLAB R2020

test functions were obtained from (Jamil and Yang 2013), (Jamil et al. 2013), (Yang
2010b), and (Liang et al. 2005).

4 Alternative metaheuristics

Regarding the fact that the overall performance of FHO should be evaluated by compara-
tive means, a total of 16 metaheuristic algorithms, particularly latest and most important
algorithms in the fields of optimization and metaheuristics, were chosen for this purpose.
These include the Bat-Inspired Algorithm (BIA), Big-Bang Big-Crunch (BBBC) algo-
rithm, Butterfly Optimization Algorithm (BOA), Cyclical Parthenogenesis Algorithm
(CPA), Charged System Search (CSS) algorithm, Galactic Swarm Optimization (GSO),
Jaya Algorithm (JA), Rain Fall Optimization (RFO) algorithm, Tug of War Optimization
(TWO), Wind Driven Optimization (WDO) algorithm, Whale Optimization Algorithm
(WOA) algorithm, Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO), and the Ray Optimization Algorithm
(ROA). It should be noted that some of these algorithms require a number of parameters
to be tuned to improve their performance. Therefore, a parameter investigation process was
conducted for this purpose, in which the most successful sets of parameters were derived
from the literature. Table 3 specifies the parameters of these algorithms.

5 Numerical results of the mathematical functions

The results of FHO alongside the other 10 metaheuristic algorithms in dealing with the
considered 233 mathematical test functions are described in this section. A total number
of 150,000 objective function evaluations were considered while a tolerance of 1 × 10−12 is
considered as the stopping criterion for the FHO and the selected alternatives. A total num-
ber of 100 optimization runs were also considered for statistical purposes in order to calcu-
late the mean and standard deviation of the optimization results. Besides, a fixed random
state was also considered in dealing with the FHO and the other alternatives in order to
have a comparative investigation under equal condition. Since a total of 233 test functions
were utilized for comparative purposes, a tolerance of 1 × 10−12 is achievable as stopping
criterion of the optimization process due to the fact that all of the alternative algorithms
have been implemented individually in this study and none of the previously published
results have been utilized in this purpose which increase the complexity levels of the study.

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 301

Table 2  Basic properties of the collected mathematical test functions

No. Name Type R D Min.

F1 Ackley 2 function C, D, NS, Sc,M [− 35, 35] 2 − 200

F2 Ackley 3 function C, D, NS, NSc,U [− 32, 32] 2 − 195.629
F3 Adjiman function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 1, 2] & [− 1, 1] 2 − 2.02181
F4 Bartels conn function C, ND, NS, NSc, M [− 500, 500] 2 1
F5 Beale function C, D, NS, NSc, U [− 4.5, 4.5] 2 0
F6 Becker-lago function S [− 10, 10] 2 0
F7 Biggs EXP2 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [0, 20] 2 0
F8 Bird function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 2π, π] 2 − 106.765
F9 Bohachevsky 1 function C, D, S, NSc, M [− 100, 100] 2 0
F10 Bohachevsky 2 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 100, 100] 2 0
F11 Bohachevsky 3 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 100, 100] 2 0
F12 Booth function C, D, NS, NSc, U [− 10, 10] 2 0
F13 Branin RCOS function C, D, NS, NSc M [− 5, 10] & [0, 15] 2 0.397887
F14 Branin RCOS 2 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 5, 15] 2 5.559037
F15 Brent function C, D, NS, NSc, U [− 10, 10] 2 0
F16 Bukin 4 function C, ND, S, NSc, M [− 15, − 5] & [− 3, 3] 2 0
F17 Bukin 6 function C, ND, NS, NSc, M [− 15, − 5] & [− 3, 3] 2 0
F18 Camel function—three C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 5, 5] 2 0
hump
F19 Camel function—six C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 5, 5] 2 − 1.0316
hump
F20 Carrom table function NS [− 10, 10] 2 − 24.1568
F21 Chen bird function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 500, 500] 2 − 2000
F22 Chen V function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 500, 500] 2 − 2000
F23 Chichinadze function C, D, S, NSc, M [− 30, 30] 2 − 42.9444
F24 Cross-in-tray function C, NS, NSc, M [− 10, 10] 2 − 2.06261
F25 Cube function C, D, NS, NSc, U [− 10, 10] 2 0
F26 Damavandi function C, D, NS, NSc, M [0, 14] 2 0
F27 Deckkers-aarts function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 20, 20] 2 − 24771.1
F28 Easom function C, D, S, NSc, M [− 100, 100] 2 −1
F29 El-Attar-Vidyasagar-Dutta C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 500, 500] 2 1.7128
function
F30 Egg crate function C, D, NS, Sc, M [− 5, 5] 2 0
F31 Exp 2 function S [0, 20] 2 0
F32 Freudenstein Roth func- C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 10, 10] 2 0
tion
F33 Giunta function C, D, S, Sc, M [− 1, 1] 2 0.060447
F34 Goldstein price function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 2, 2] 2 3
F35 Hansen function C, D, S, NSc, M [− 10, 10] 2 − 165.953
F36 Himmelblau function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 5, 5] 2 0
F37 Hosaki function C, D, NS, NSc, M [0, 5] & [0, 6] 2 − 2.3458
F38 Jennrich-Sampson func- C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 1, 1] 2 124.3612
tion
F39 Keane function C, D, NS, NSc, M [0, 10] 2 − 0.67367
F40 Leon function C, D, NS, NSc, U [− 1.2, 1.2] 2 0

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
302 M. Azizi et al.

Table 2  (continued)
No. Name Type R D Min.

F41 Levy 3 function S [− 10, 10] 2 − 176.542

F42 Levy 5 function NS [− 10, 10] 2 − 176.138
F43 Matyas function C, D, NS, NSc, U [− 10, 10] 2 0
F44 McCormick function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 1.5, 4] & [− 3, 3] 2 − 1.9133
F45 Mexican hat function NS [− 10, 10] 2 − 19.6683
F46 Michaelewicz 2 function S [0, π] 2 − 1.8013
F47 Mishra 3 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 10, 10] 2 − 0.18465
F48 Mishra 4 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 10, 10] 2 − 0.19941
F49 Mishra 5 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 10, 10] 2 − 1.01983
F50 Mishra 6 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 10, 10] 2 − 2.28395
F51 Mishra 8 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 10, 10] 2 0
F52 Mishra 10 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 10, 10] 2 0
F53 Parsopoulos function C, D, S, Sc, M [− 5, 5] 2 0
F54 Pen Holder function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 11, 11] 2 − 0.96354
F55 Periodic function S [− 10, 10] 2 0.9
F56 Price 1 function C, ND, S, NSc, M [− 500, 500] 2 0
F57 Price 2 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 10, 10] 2 0.9
F58 Price 3 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 500, 500] 2 0
F59 Price 4 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 500, 500] 2 0
F60 Quadratic function C, D, NS, NSc [− 10, 10] 2 − 3873.72
F61 Ripple 1 function NS [0, 1] 2 − 2.2
F62 Ripple 25 function NS [0, 1] 2 −2
F63 Rosenbrock modified C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 2, 2] 2 34.3712
function
F64 Rotated ellipse function C, D, NS, NSc, U [− 500, 500] 2 0
F65 Rotated ellipse 2 function C, D, NS, NSc, U [− 500, 500] 2 0
F66 Rump function C, D, NS, NSc, U [− 500, 500] 2 0
F67 Scahffer 1 function C, D, NS, NSc, U [− 100, 100] 2 0
F68 Scahffer 2 function C, D, NS, NSc, U [− 100, 100] 2 0
F69 Scahffer 3 function C, D, NS, NSc, U [− 100, 100] 2 0.001567
F70 Scahffer 4 function C, D, NS, NSc, U [− 100, 100] 2 0.292579
F71 Schwefel 2.6 function C, D, NS, NSc, U [− 100, 100] 2 0
F72 Schwefel 2.36 function C, D, S, Sc, M [0, 500] 2 − 3456
F73 Table 1/holder Table 1 C, D, S, NSc, M [− 10, 10] 2 − 26.9203
function
F74 Table 2/holder Table 2 C, D, S, NSc, M [− 10, 10] 2 − 19.2085
function
F75 Table 3/carrom table C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 10, 10] 2 − 24.1568
function
F76 Testtube holder function C, D, S, NSc, M [− 10, 10] 2 − 10.8723
F77 Trecanni function C, D, S, NSc, U [− 5, 5] 2 0
F78 Trefethen function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 10, 10] 2 − 3.30687
F79 Tripod function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 100, 100] 2 0
F80 Ursem 1 function S [− 2.5, 3] & [− 2, 2] 2 − 4.81681
F81 Ursem 3 function NS [− 2, 2] & [− 1.5, 1.5] 2 − 2.5

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 303

Table 2  (continued)
No. Name Type R D Min.

F82 Ursem 4 function NS [− 2, 2] 2 − 1.5

F83 Ursem waves function NS [− 0.9, 1.2] & [− 1.2, 2 − 7.307
1.2]
F84 Venter Sobiezcczanski- C, D, S, NSc [− 50, 50] 2 − 400
Sobieski function
F85 Wayburn Seader 1 func- C, D, NS, Sc, U [− 500, 500] 2 0
tion
F86 Wayburn Seader 2 func- C, D, NS, Sc, U [− 500, 500] 2 0
tion
F87 Wayburn Seader 3 func- C, D, NS, Sc, U [− 500, 500] 2 21.35
tion
F88 Zettl function C, D, NS, NSc, U [− 5, 10] 2 − 0.00379
F89 Zirilli or Aluffi-Pentini’s C, D, S, NSc, U [− 10, 10] 2 − 0.3523
function
F90 Zirilli function 2 C, D, S, S, M [− 500, 500] 2 0
F91 Biggs EXP3 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [0, 20] 3 0
F92 Gulf research problem C, D, NS, NSc, M [0.1, 100] & [0, 25.6] 3 0
& [0, 6.5]
F93 Hartman 3 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [0, 1] 3 − 3.86278
F94 Helical valley C, D, NS, Sc, M [− 10, 10] 3 0
F95 Meyer-Roth function NS [0, 1] 3 4.00E−05
F96 Mishra 9 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 10, 10] 3 0
F97 Wolfe function C, D, S, Sc, M [0, 2] 3 0
F98 Biggs EXP4 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [0, 20] 4 0
F99 Colville function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 10, 10] 4 0
F100 Corana function DC, ND, S, Sc, M [− 500, 500] 4 0
F101 DeVilliers Glasser 1 C, D, NS, NSc, M [1, 100] 4 0
function
F102 Gear function NS [12, 60] 4 2.70E−12
F103 Kowalik function NS [− 5, 5] 4 0.000308
F104 Miele Cantrell function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 1, 1] 4 0
F105 Shekel 5 C, D, NS, Sc, M [0, 10] 4 − 10.1532
F106 Shekel 7 C, D, NS, Sc, M [0, 10] 4 − 10.4029
F107 Shekel 10 C, D, NS, Sc, M [0, 10] 4 − 10.5364
F108 Biggs EXP5 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [0, 20] 5 0
F109 DeVilliers Glasser 2 C, D, NS, NSc, M [1, 60] 5 0
function
F110 Dolan function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 100, 100] 5 − 529.871
F111 Langerman-5 function C, D, NS, Sc, M [0, 10] 5 − 0.965
F112 Biggs EXP6 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 20, 20] 6 0
F113 Hartman 6 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [0, 1] 6 − 3.32236
F114 Trid 6 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 36, 36] 6 − 50
F115 Ann-XOR function NS [− 1, 1] 9 0.95979
F116 Paviani function C, D, NS, Sc, M [2.0001, 10] 10 − 45.778
F117 Trid 10 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 100,100] 10 − 210
F118 Ackley 1 function C, D, NS, Sc,M [− 35, 35] 50 0

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
304 M. Azizi et al.

Table 2  (continued)
No. Name Type R D Min.

F119 Alpine 1 function C, ND, S, NSc,U [− 10, 10] 50 0

F120 Brown function C, D, NS, Sc, U [− 1, 4] 50 0
F121 Chung Reynolds function C, D, PS, Sc, U [− 100, 100] 50 0
F122 Csendes function C, D, S, Sc, M [− 1, 1] 50 0
F123 Deb 1 function C, D, S, Sc, M [− 1, 1] 50 −1
F124 Deb 3 function C, D, S, Sc, M [0, 1] 50 −1
F125 Dixon & Price function C, D, NS, Sc, U [− 10, 10] 50 0
F126 Extended Easom function C, D, S, NSc, M [− 2π, 2π] 50 −1
F127 Exponential function C, D, NS, Sc, M [− 1, 1] 50 −1
F128 Griewank function C, D, NS, Sc, M [− 100,100] 50 0
F129 Holzman 2 function S [− 10, 10] 50 0
F130 Hyper-ellipsoid function C, U [− 500, 500] 50 0
F131 Inverted cosine wave NS [− 10, 10] 50 − 49
function
F132 Levy 8 function NS [− 10, 10] 50 0
F133 Mishra 1 function C, D, NS, Sc, M [0, 1] 50 2
F134 Mishra 2 function C, D, NS, Sc, M [0, 1] 50 2
F135 Mishra 7 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 10, 10] 50 0
F136 Mishra 11 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 10, 10] 50 0
F137 Pathological function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 100, 100] 50 0
F138 Pint´er function C, D, NS, Sc, M [− 10, 10] 50 0
F139 Powell singular function C, D, NS, Sc, U [− 4, 5] 50 0
F140 Powell singular 2 function C, D, NS, Sc, U [− 4, 5] 50 0
F141 Powell sum function C, D, S, Sc, U [− 1, 1] 50 0
F142 Rastrigin function C, D, S, M [− 5.12, 5.12] 50 0
F143 Qing function C, D, S, Sc, M [− 500, 500] 50 0
F144 Quintic function C, D, S, NSc, M [− 10, 10] 50 0
F145 Rosenbrock function C, D, NS, Sc, U [− 30, 30] 50 0
F146 Salomon function C, D, NS, Sc, M [− 100, 100] 50 0
F147 Schumer Steiglitz func- C, D, S, Sc, U [− 100, 100] 50 0
tion
F148 Schwefel function C, D, PS, Sc, U [− 100, 100] 50 0
F149 Schwefel 1.2 function C, D, NS, Sc, U [− 100, 100] 50 0
F150 Schwefel 2.4 function C, D, S, NSc, M [0, 10] 50 0
F151 Schwefel 2.20 function C, ND, S, Sc, U [− 100, 100] 50 0
F152 Schwefel 2.21 function C, ND, S, Sc, U [− 100, 100] 50 0
F153 Schwefel 2.22 function C, D, NS, Sc, U [− 100, 100] 50 0
F154 Schwefel 2.23 function C, D, NS, Sc, U [− 10, 10] 50 0
F155 Schwefel 2.25 function C, D, S, NSc, M [0, 10] 50 0
F156 Schwefel 2.26 function C, D, S, Sc, M [− 500, 500] 50 − 418.983
F157 Sphere function C, D, S, Sc, M [0, 10] 50 0
F158 Step function DC, ND, S, Sc, U [− 100, 100] 50 0
F159 Step 2 function DC, ND, S, Sc, U [− 100, 100] 50 0
F160 Step 3 function DC, ND, S, Sc, U [− 100, 100] 50 0
F161 Stepint function DC, ND, S, Sc, U [− 5.12, 5.12] 50 − 275

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 305

Table 2  (continued)
No. Name Type R D Min.

F162 Streched V sine wave C, D, NS, Sc, U [− 10, 10] 50 0

function
F163 Sum squares function C, D, S, Sc, U [− 10, 10] 50 0
F164 Styblinski-Tang function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 5, 5] 50 − 1958.3
F165 Trid function C, D, NS, NSc, U [− D^2, D^2] 50 − 22050
F166 Trigonometric 1 function C, D, NS, Sc, M [0, π] 50 0
F167 Trigonometric 2 function C, D, NS, Sc, M [− 500, 500] 50 1
F168 W/Wavy function C, D, S, Sc, M [− π, π] 50 0
F169 Xin-She Yang (function 1) DC, ND, NS, Sc, M [− 20, 20] 50 −1
F170 Xin-She Yang (function 2) DC, ND, NS, Sc, M [− 10, 10] 50 0
F171 Xin-She Yang (function 3) DC, ND, NS, Sc, M [− 2π, 2π] 50 0
F172 Xin-She Yang (function 4) DC, ND, NS, Sc, M [− 5, 5] 50 0
F173 Xin-She Yang (function 5) DC, ND, NS, Sc, M [− 10, 10] 50 −1
F174 Xin-She Yang (function 6) DC, ND, NS, Sc, M [− 5, 5] 50 0
F175 Zakharov function C, D, NS, Sc, M [− 5, 10] 50 0
F176 Ackley 1 function C, D, NS, Sc,M [− 35, 35] 100 0
F177 Alpine 1 function C, ND, S, NSc,U [− 10, 10] 100 0
F178 Brown function C, D, NS, Sc, U [− 1, 4] 100 0
F179 Chung Reynolds function C, D, PS, Sc, U [− 100, 100] 100 0
F180 Csendes function C, D, S, Sc, M [− 1, 1] 100 0
F181 Deb 1 function C, D, S, Sc, M [− 1, 1] 100 −1
F182 Deb 3 function C, D, S, Sc, M [0, 1] 100 −1
F183 Dixon & Price function C, D, NS, Sc, U [− 10, 10] 100 0
F184 Extended Easom function C, D, S, NSc, M [− 2π, 2π] 100 −1
F185 Exponential function C, D, NS, Sc, M [− 1, 1] 100 −1
F186 Griewank function C, D, NS, Sc, M [− 100,100] 100 0
F187 Holzman 2 function S [− 10, 10] 100 0
F188 Hyper-ellipsoid function C, U [− 500, 500] 100 0
F189 Inverted cosine wave NS [− 10, 10] 100 − 99
function
F190 Levy 8 function NS [− 10, 10] 100 0
F191 Mishra 1 function C, D, NS, Sc, M [0, 1] 100 2
F192 Mishra 2 function C, D, NS, Sc, M [0, 1] 100 2
F193 Mishra 7 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 10, 10] 100 0
F194 Mishra 11 function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 10, 10] 100 0
F195 Pathological function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 100, 100] 100 0
F196 Pint´er function C, D, NS, Sc, M [− 10, 10] 100 0
F197 Powell singular function C, D, NS, Sc, U [− 4, 5] 100 0
F198 Powell singular 2 function C, D, NS, Sc, U [− 4, 5] 100 0
F199 Powell Sum function C, D, S, Sc, U [− 1, 1] 100 0
F200 Rastrigin function C, D, S, M [− 5.12, 5.12] 100 0
F201 Qing function C, D, S, Sc, M [− 500, 500] 100 0
F202 Quintic function C, D, S, NSc, M [− 10, 10] 100 0
F203 Rosenbrock function C, D, NS, Sc, U [− 30, 30] 100 0
F204 Salomon function C, D, NS, Sc, M [− 100, 100] 100 0

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
306 M. Azizi et al.

Table 2  (continued)
No. Name Type R D Min.

F205 Schumer Steiglitz function C, D, S, Sc, U [− 100, 100] 100 0

F206 Schwefel function C, D, PS, Sc, U [− 100, 100] 100 0
F207 Schwefel 1.2 function C, D, NS, Sc, U [− 100, 100] 100 0
F208 Schwefel 2.4 function C, D, S, NSc, M [0, 10] 100 0
F209 Schwefel 2.20 function C, ND, S, Sc, U [− 100, 100] 100 0
F210 Schwefel 2.21 function C, ND, S, Sc, U [− 100, 100] 100 0
F211 Schwefel 2.22 function C, D, NS, Sc, U [− 100, 100] 100 0
F212 Schwefel 2.23 function C, D, NS, Sc, U [− 10, 10] 100 0
F213 Schwefel 2.25 function C, D, S, NSc, M [0, 10] 100 0
F214 Schwefel 2.26 function C, D, S, Sc, M [− 500, 500] 100 − 418.983
F215 Sphere function C, D, S, Sc, M [0, 10] 100 0
F216 Step function DC, ND, S, Sc, U [− 100, 100] 100 0
F217 Step 2 function DC, ND, S, Sc, U [− 100, 100] 100 0
F218 Step 3 function DC, ND, S, Sc, U [− 100, 100] 100 0
F219 Stepint function DC, ND, S, Sc, U [− 5.12, 5.12] 100 − 575
F220 Streched V sine wave C, D, NS, Sc, U [− 10, 10] 100 0
function
F221 Sum Squares function C, D, S, Sc, U [− 10, 10] 100 0
F222 Styblinski-Tang function C, D, NS, NSc, M [− 5, 5] 100 − 3916.6
F223 Trid function C, D, NS, NSc, U [− D^2, D^2] 100 − 171600
F224 Trigonometric 1 function C, D, NS, Sc, M [0, π] 100 0
F225 Trigonometric 2 function C, D, NS, Sc, M [− 500, 500] 100 1
F226 W/Wavy function C, D, S, Sc, M [− π, π] 100 0
F227 Xin-She Yang (function 1) DC, ND, NS, Sc, M [− 20, 20] 100 −1
F228 Xin-She Yang (function 2) DC, ND, NS, Sc, M [− 10, 10] 100 0
F229 Xin-She Yang (function 3) DC, ND, NS, Sc, M [− 2π, 2π] 100 0
F230 Xin-She Yang (function 4) DC, ND, NS, Sc, M [− 5, 5] 100 0
F231 Xin-She Yang (function 5) DC, ND, NS, Sc, M [− 10, 10] 100 −1
F232 Xin-She Yang (function 6) DC, ND, NS, Sc, M [− 5, 5] 100 0
F233 Zakharov function C, D, NS, Sc, M [− 5, 10] 100 0
C Continuous, NC Non-Continuous, D Differentiable, ND Non-Differentiable, S Separable, NS Non-Sep-
arable, Sc Scalable, NSc Non-Scalable, U Unimodal and M Multi-modal, R Variables Range, D Variables
Dimension, Min global minimum of the functions

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 307

Fig. 10  The 3D plots of the 2D mathematical functions (first set)

It also should be noted that this number of test functions are utilized for the first time for
testing a metaheuristic algorithm; thus for a smaller number of test functions, a smaller tol-
erance as 10−30 or 10−50 can be utilized.
The best values of the considered 100 optimization runs are all presented in Table 4
for the SS, 50D and 100D mathematical test functions. Based on the results, FHO

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
308 M. Azizi et al.

Fig. 11  The 3D plots of the 2D mathematical functions (second set)

outranks the other metaheuristic algorithms in most of the cases. The mean values of
the Function Evaluations (Fun. Evl.) in each of the conducted optimization runs regard-
ing the alternative metaheuristics are presented in Table 27 in the Appendix. It is obvi-
ous that FHO is able to converge to better results than the other metaheuristics with a

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 309

Fig. 12  The 3D plots of the 50D mathematical functions

minimum number of required function evaluations which represents the ability of this
algorithm to deal with computational complexity issues.
The convergence curves of the 100 optimization runs for FHO in Fig. 14 help to
clarify the algorithm’s ability to deal with the mathematical test functions, in which the

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
310 M. Azizi et al.

Fig. 13  The 3D plots of the 100D mathematical functions

best, median and worst runs are highlighted for clarification. It can be concluded that
FHO performs a fast optimization procedures in most of the cases, while completing the
predefined 150,000 objective function evaluations is not required to achieve the toler-
ance of 1 × 10−12.

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 311

Table 3  Parameter presentation of the alternative metaheuristic algorithms

Metaheuristic Parameter Description Value

CPA Npop Number of population 50

NA Number of aphids 60
NC Number of colonies 10
Fr Ratio of aphids 0.4
α1 Search step size parameter 1 1
α2 Search step size parameter 2 2
TWO Npop Number of population 50
Meus Static coefficients of friction 1
Meuk Kinematic coefficients of friction 1
δ Time step in the movement equation 1
α Controlling parameter 0.99
β Scaling factor of team’s movement 0.1
BIA Npop Number of bats 50
A Loudness 0.5
r Pulse rate 0.5
QMin Frequency minimum 0
QMax Frequency maximum 2
BBBC Npop Number of population 50
β Parameter for the center of mass 0.2
α Parameter for size of the initial search space 1
BOA Npop Number of butterflies 50
PS Probability switch 0.8
PE Power exponent 0.1
SM Sensory modality 0.01
CSS Npop Number of charged particles 50
a Radius of charged sphere 0.1
HMCR Harmony memory consideration rate 0.85
PAR Pitch adjustment rate 0.15
kt Attract-repel coefficient 0.9
Ncm Charged memory size 12
ka Acceleration coefficient 0.5
kv Velocity coefficient 0.5
RFO Npop Population size 50
α Constant for movement update 360
G Gravity 10
t Time constant 1
P Power 1
N Norm 1
WDO Npop Population size 50
RT RT coefficient 3
g Gravitational constant 0.2
α Constant for updating process 0.4
c Coriolis effect 0.4
V Maximum allowed speed 0.3

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Table 4  The best results of metaheuristic algorithms considering mathematical test functions
312

No. Alternative metaheuristic algorithms

BIA BBBC BOA CPA CSS GSO JA RFO TWO WDO FHO

13
F1 9.75E−07 6.27E−05 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 8.21E−10 0.00E + 00 2.57E−02 1.18E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F2 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 4.08E−01 9.40E−05 3.01E−03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F3 0.00E + 00 3.22E−06 0.00E + 00 3.22E−06 3.22E−06 3.22E−06 3.22E−06 7.00E−03 3.22E−06 3.22E−06 3.22E−06
F4 3.13E−09 4.72E−06 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.87E + 01 0.00E + 00 4.47E−02 4.30E−02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F5 7.01E−12 1.03E−11 2.40E−06 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 9.71E + 00 7.05E−08 4.71E−04 0.00E + 00 7.05E−09 0.00E + 00
F6 0.00E + 00 5.03E−11 3.49E−08 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 4.32E−07 8.21E−05 0.00E + 00 3.77E−10 0.00E + 00
F7 0.00E + 00 6.92E−12 3.20E−07 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.08E + 00 5.14E−07 2.37E−04 0.00E + 00 9.01E−08 0.00E + 00
F8 2.51E−07 2.56E−07 0.00E + 00 2.51E−07 2.51E−07 8.07E + 01 5.75E−05 2.02E−02 2.51E−07 2.94E−05 2.51E−07
F9 2.83E−10 8.58E−09 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 6.77E−03 8.50E−03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F10 2.18E−01 9.07E−09 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 6.71E−03 1.91E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F11 1.49E−11 7.94E−09 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 3.33E−03 1.95E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F12 0.00E + 00 1.16E−10 3.14E−06 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.00E + 00 2.38E−05 4.15E−03 0.00E + 00 8.66E−07 0.00E + 00
F13 5.77E−08 5.78E−08 5.39E−06 5.77E−08 5.77E−08 7.81E−05 3.55E−06 7.21E−04 5.77E−08 6.36E−08 5.77E−08
F14 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 6.04E−04 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 9.93E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.04E−02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F15 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F16 5.71E−10 1.84E−09 1.71E−06 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.00E−02 1.13E−05 4.18E−05 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F17 9.70E−03 4.32E−03 7.39E−02 2.55E−05 2.21E−04 5.00E−02 1.92E−02 7.86E−01 8.91E−03 2.75E−02 1.02E−04
F18 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 8.13E−07 6.25E−04 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F19 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.03E + 00 0.00E + 00 6.82E−04 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F20 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.78E−05 1.75E−02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F21 1.00E + 03 1.00E + 03 0.00E + 00 1.00E + 03 2.00E + 03 0.00E + 00 1.00E + 03 1.00E + 03 1.00E + 03 1.10E−05 0.00E + 00
F22 1.00E + 03 1.00E + 03 0.00E + 00 1.00E + 03 1.07E + 03 1.00E + 03 1.01E + 03 1.00E + 03 0.00E + 00 1.00E + 03 0.00E + 00
F23 1.30E−05 1.30E−05 0.00E + 00 1.30E−05 1.30E−05 4.47E−01 9.47E−04 4.80E−03 1.30E−05 1.66E−05 1.30E−05
F24 3.09E−07 3.09E−07 0.00E + 00 3.09E−07 3.09E−07 3.09E−07 3.36E−07 6.78E−06 3.09E−07 3.09E−07 3.09E−07
F25 5.04E−12 2.34E−10 5.21E−07 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 7.23E−05 1.31E−02 0.00E + 00 4.23E−10 0.00E + 00
M. Azizi et al.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Table 4  (continued)
No. Alternative metaheuristic algorithms
BIA BBBC BOA CPA CSS GSO JA RFO TWO WDO FHO

F26 2.35E−08 2.00E + 00 3.37E−03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.55E−02 1.92E−03 4.66E−01 0.00E + 00 2.00E + 00 2.00E + 00
F27 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.48E + 04 0.00E + 00 3.95E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F28 0.00E + 00 7.43E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 3.96E−11 0.00E + 00 7.26E−04 1.06E−02 0.00E + 00 4.46E−11 0.00E + 00
F29 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 6.80E−05 0.00E + 00 7.53E + 01 6.90E + 01 1.04E + 00 7.54E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F30 6.84E−12 3.25E−10 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 3.02E−05 2.46E−03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F31 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.71E−08 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.95E + 00 4.75E−07 7.79E−04 0.00E + 00 2.43E−08 0.00E + 00
F32 5.77E−12 5.05E−10 5.08E−04 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.40E + 00 4.11E−04 4.59E−03 0.00E + 00 4.86E−07 0.00E + 00
F33 4.02E−03 4.02E−03 4.02E−03 4.02E−03 4.02E−03 4.02E−03 4.02E−03 4.03E−03 4.02E−03 4.02E−03 4.02E−03
F34 1.52E−10 1.73E−10 6.58E−05 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.97E + 01 8.46E−05 1.94E−02 0.00E + 00 9.54E−07 0.00E + 00
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm

F35 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 7.10E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F36 5.86E−12 1.86E−10 1.45E−05 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 8.00E + 00 3.03E−05 1.11E−03 0.00E + 00 4.28E−08 0.00E + 00
F37 0.00E + 00 2.15E−03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 9.45E−01 0.00E + 00 6.35E−05 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F38 9.82E−04 9.82E−04 1.18E−03 9.82E−04 9.82E−04 9.82E−04 1.72E−03 2.04E−01 9.82E−04 9.82E−04 9.82E−04
F39 4.79E−07 2.33E−05 0.00E + 00 4.79E−07 4.79E−07 6.74E−01 4.79E−07 2.67E−06 4.79E−07 4.79E−07 4.79E−07
F40 1.68E−12 3.21E−12 8.19E−07 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 9.16E−08 1.31E−03 0.00E + 00 1.36E−09 0.00E + 00
F41 2.07E−04 2.07E−04 0.00E + 00 2.07E−04 2.07E−04 8.15E + 00 6.98E−03 8.61E−03 2.07E−04 2.10E−04 2.07E−04
F42 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 8.10E + 00 9.41E−03 2.53E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F43 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 9.35E−07 8.21E−05 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F44 0.00E + 00 7.70E−05 0.00E + 00 7.70E−05 7.70E−05 7.70E−05 7.73E−05 1.20E−04 7.70E−05 7.71E−05 7.70E−05
F45 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F46 0.00E + 00 3.59E−02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 8.00E−01 0.00E + 00 1.25E−03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F47 0.00E + 00 4.43E−04 1.21E−02 0.00E + 00 3.03E−05 1.73E−02 8.47E−03 3.61E−03 0.00E + 00 4.79E−03 0.00E + 00
F48 0.00E + 00 6.45E−05 2.50E−02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 6.46E−04 5.10E−03 5.32E−03 0.00E + 00 5.01E−03 0.00E + 00
F49 0.00E + 00 4.80E−07 0.00E + 00 4.80E−07 4.80E−07 8.89E−01 4.80E−07 4.80E−07 4.80E−07 4.80E−07 4.80E−07
313

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Table 4  (continued)
314

No. Alternative metaheuristic algorithms

BIA BBBC BOA CPA CSS GSO JA RFO TWO WDO FHO

13
F50 1.62E−07 1.62E−07 0.00E + 00 1.62E−07 1.62E−07 4.48E−01 7.75E−06 1.10E−03 1.62E−07 1.84E−07 1.62E−07
F51 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F52 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.70E−09 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F53 0.00E + 00 1.25E−11 3.92E−08 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 7.84E−08 5.77E−05 0.00E + 00 7.56E−09 0.00E + 00
F54 0.00E + 00 3.20E−05 0.00E + 00 5.17E−06 5.17E−06 0.00E + 00 5.17E−06 1.23E−05 5.17E−06 5.17E−06 5.17E−06
F55 1.67E−12 8.00E−12 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.49E−06 1.76E−03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F56 0.00E + 00 1.26E−07 1.10E−06 0.00E + 00 3.17E + 00 0.00E + 00 6.27E−03 5.38E−03 2.96E−06 7.03E−11 0.00E + 00
F57 1.67E−12 8.00E−12 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.49E−06 1.76E−03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F58 6.31E−11 2.14E−06 2.52E−07 0.00E + 00 3.94E + 03 0.00E + 00 3.07E−01 1.59E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.67E−09 0.00E + 00
F59 2.79E−12 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.15E + 03 0.00E + 00 2.21E−05 7.71E−02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F60 1.18E−04 1.18E−04 0.00E + 00 1.18E−04 1.18E−04 2.93E + 00 1.36E−03 9.93E−02 1.18E−04 1.18E−04 1.18E−04
F61 9.71E−08 7.61E−09 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 5.95E−03 1.40E−03 4.05E−02 0.00E + 00 9.17E−04 0.00E + 00
F62 1.47E−10 7.42E−03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.14E−04 4.22E−06 3.01E−03 0.00E + 00 9.13E−09 0.00E + 00
F63 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.85E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F64 7.14E−12 6.07E−07 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.06E + 02 0.00E + 00 6.76E−02 1.20E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F65 0.00E + 00 2.41E−08 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 6.54E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.02E−02 2.64E−02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F66 4.66E−07 4.93E−08 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.07E + 04 0.00E + 00 2.53E−03 1.72E−02 1.53E−08 3.51E−12 0.00E + 00
F67 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.08E−10 9.38E−10 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F68 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 3.15E−08 5.98E−06 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F69 4.53E−09 4.84E−09 1.26E−06 4.53E−09 4.84E−09 4.98E−01 3.08E−05 1.31E−04 1.33E−08 5.46E−09 4.53E−09
F70 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.07E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F71 7.38E−07 7.51E−06 1.15E−03 0.00E + 00 3.00E−07 1.00E + 00 3.34E−02 1.38E−01 0.00E + 00 3.11E−04 0.00E + 00
F72 0.00E + 00 2.52E + 02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 8.22E + 00 4.99E−04 3.70E−01 9.91E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.37E−04 0.00E + 00
F73 0.00E + 00 4.44E−07 0.00E + 00 4.44E−07 4.44E−07 0.00E + 00 1.60E−05 1.10E−02 4.44E−07 4.67E−07 4.44E−07
M. Azizi et al.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Table 4  (continued)
No. Alternative metaheuristic algorithms
BIA BBBC BOA CPA CSS GSO JA RFO TWO WDO FHO

F74 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 6.44E−06 2.41E−03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F75 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.78E−05 1.75E−02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F76 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 5.44E + 00 7.78E−05 1.48E−03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F77 1.92E−12 6.41E−12 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 4.33E−09 8.56E−05 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F78 3.03E−01 5.43E−03 0.00E + 00 2.52E−09 2.52E−09 1.16E + 00 4.62E−02 5.35E−01 2.52E−09 3.29E−06 2.52E−09
F79 1.11E−06 1.29E−04 4.28E−03 0.00E + 00 5.41E−05 2.00E + 00 5.09E−02 3.05E−02 0.00E + 00 1.97E−03 0.00E + 00
F80 0.00E + 00 2.35E−12 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.84E−07 8.18E−05 0.00E + 00 2.64E−09 0.00E + 00
F81 0.00E + 00 3.35E−06 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 5.31E−11 0.00E + 00 4.84E−04 8.88E−03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F82 0.00E + 00 2.03E−07 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.09E−10 0.00E + 00 3.24E−04 6.24E−03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm

F83 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 3.86E−06 9.22E−05 0.00E + 00 3.58E−07 0.00E + 00
F84 0.00E + 00 2.16E−10 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.17E−04 3.29E−03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F85 9.24E−11 4.31E−06 1.31E−03 0.00E + 00 6.83E + 03 2.77E−01 3.62E−01 1.92E−01 0.00E + 00 1.65E−07 0.00E + 00
F86 0.00E + 00 2.62E−08 2.03E−08 0.00E + 00 2.01E + 00 3.36E + 00 6.52E−02 1.08E−01 1.84E−11 1.63E−09 0.00E + 00
F87 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.49E + 02 2.15E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F88 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.03E−04 4.08E−06 1.58E−04 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F89 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 3.17E−01 0.00E + 00 1.40E−03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F90 0.00E + 00 9.56E−09 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.28E + 01 0.00E + 00 1.12E−02 3.55E−02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F91 1.23E−11 1.26E−10 9.19E−06 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.96E + 00 3.70E−05 3.19E−03 0.00E + 00 2.38E−06 0.00E + 00
F92 0.00E + 00 3.33E−10 2.91E−04 0.00E + 00 8.17E−09 0.00E + 00 1.21E−05 1.40E−03 0.00E + 00 6.32E−07 0.00E + 00
F93 2.21E−06 2.21E−06 0.00E + 00 2.21E−06 2.21E−06 1.96E + 00 1.14E−04 9.08E−03 2.21E−06 2.38E−06 2.21E−06
F94 8.92E−12 2.97E−12 7.53E−10 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 7.46E + 00 5.33E−04 1.17E−02 0.00E + 00 5.00E−10 0.00E + 00
F95 3.55E−06 2.45E−02 2.46E−02 2.45E−02 2.45E−02 2.89E−02 2.45E−02 2.48E−02 2.45E−02 2.45E−02 2.45E−02
F96 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.64E−05 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.92E−05 3.94E−02 0.00E + 00 6.15E−12 0.00E + 00
F97 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 3.07E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
315

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Table 4  (continued)
316

No. Alternative metaheuristic algorithms

BIA BBBC BOA CPA CSS GSO JA RFO TWO WDO FHO

13
F98 1.92E−10 1.00E−08 2.03E−03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.83E + 00 5.67E−03 4.98E−02 0.00E + 00 2.12E−05 0.00E + 00
F99 5.21E−08 2.52E−06 1.03E−02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.48E + 00 1.13E + 01 0.00E + 00 3.21E−06 0.00E + 00
F100 2.95E + 04 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 3.86E + 05 0.00E + 00 3.19E + 04 2.41E + 04 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F101 0.00E + 00 2.05E−01 1.67E + 03 0.00E + 00 2.67E + 01 7.30E + 06 1.12E + 03 4.48E + 03 4.57E−02 8.14E + 01 0.00E + 00
F102 0.00E + 00 2.04E−11 9.89E−10 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 7.32E−01 0.00E + 00 8.86E−10 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F103 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 8.81E−07 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.35E−03 3.42E−04 8.65E−04 1.57E−05 6.05E−09 0.00E + 00
F104 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 3.72E−05 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.86E−03 0.00E + 00 7.51E−04 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F105 4.91E−07 3.34E−06 0.00E + 00 3.21E−07 3.21E−07 2.52E−01 1.74E + 00 5.19E + 00 3.21E−07 1.25E−06 3.21E−07
F106 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.52E−01 1.65E + 00 5.24E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F107 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.51E−01 2.08E + 00 1.35E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F108 7.47E−06 1.93E−07 6.07E−04 4.42E−07 1.44E−08 6.11E + 00 3.40E−03 1.76E−02 1.09E−03 1.33E−04 0.00E + 00
F109 0.00E + 00 1.51E + 02 5.52E + 02 1.40E−05 9.34E + 01 1.89E + 06 2.43E + 02 3.61E + 02 8.68E + 01 1.57E + 02 1.40E + 00
F110 0.00E + 00 1.79E−04 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.63E + 01 4.96E + 02 6.35E + 00 4.82E + 01 0.00E + 00 3.26E−02 0.00E + 00
F111 1.10E−06 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 9.56E−01 0.00E + 00 1.67E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F112 2.21E−06 1.81E−06 2.35E−03 2.13E−05 6.95E−07 6.55E−01 1.68E−02 1.45E−01 3.37E−03 5.12E−06 3.62E−09
F113 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.74E + 00 3.33E−02 3.10E−01 0.00E + 00 1.96E−04 0.00E + 00
F114 2.80E−08 1.40E−05 7.65E + 00 0.00E + 00 6.30E−05 2.00E + 01 6.96E + 00 3.49E−01 0.00E + 00 7.28E−04 0.00E + 00
F115 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 4.02E−02 2.48E−03 7.37E−03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F116 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.05E + 01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 6.43E + 00 1.09E + 01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F117 2.67E + 00 1.18E−03 1.41E + 02 4.26E−09 8.23E−01 1.20E + 02 2.07E + 02 1.56E + 02 4.13E−08 6.30E−02 0.00E + 00
F118 1.36E + 01 1.21E−01 0.00E + 00 1.86E + 01 6.83E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.93E + 01 1.33E + 01 7.82E−12 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F119 3.10E + 00 6.06E−01 0.00E + 00 5.66E−06 2.08E−01 0.00E + 00 6.66E + 01 4.00E + 01 8.36E−03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F120 6.05E−05 2.74E−04 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.01E−03 0.00E + 00 3.90E + 02 7.04E + 01 0.00E + 00 2.04E−02 0.00E + 00
F121 2.58E + 07 3.89E−02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.64E + 06 0.00E + 00 3.22E + 09 3.07E + 07 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
M. Azizi et al.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Table 4  (continued)
No. Alternative metaheuristic algorithms
BIA BBBC BOA CPA CSS GSO JA RFO TWO WDO FHO

F122 9.67E−07 0.00E + 00 1.01E−11 0.00E + 00 5.34E−10 0.00E + 00 6.47E−01 5.21E−02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F123 4.22E−04 3.06E−04 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 4.15E−02 0.00E + 00 4.13E−01 4.88E−01 6.86E−02 5.68E−02 0.00E + 00
F124 0.00E + 00 6.34E−05 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 3.36E−02 1.61E−07 3.80E−01 4.67E−01 2.00E−02 3.24E−02 1.54E−03
F125 6.68E−01 7.20E−01 9.83E−01 6.67E−01 5.11E + 00 2.50E−01 1.25E + 06 4.44E + 04 6.77E−01 6.71E−01 2.50E−01
F126 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 2.33E−03 0.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.26E−01 1.00E + 00
F127 1.33E−05 9.13E−06 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.39E−05 0.00E + 00 9.41E−01 5.10E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F128 2.27E + 00 8.22E−03 0.00E + 00 1.93E−11 1.41E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.52E + 01 2.63E + 00 2.96E−06 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F129 1.09E−09 4.91E−06 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.20E−02 0.00E + 00 3.30E + 05 1.47E + 04 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F130 3.89E + 17 2.82E + 14 0.00E + 00 1.96E + 07 3.32E + 17 0.00E + 00 9.41E + 17 2.22E + 17 7.25E + 14 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm

F131 2.99E + 01 4.12E + 01 0.00E + 00 3.56E + 01 2.19E + 01 0.00E + 00 4.20E + 01 4.05E + 01 1.41E + 01 1.52E + 01 0.00E + 00
F132 4.79E + 00 1.47E + 01 2.96E + 00 4.05E + 01 3.04E−01 0.00E + 00 1.41E + 02 4.12E + 01 1.29E−10 9.04E−03 2.05E−04
F133 0.00E + 00 1.81E−02 2.92E + 16 0.00E + 00 7.60E−03 0.00E + 00 1.05E + 13 8.00E + 23 1.27E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F134 0.00E + 00 1.85E−02 2.92E + 16 0.00E + 00 1.05E−02 0.00E + 00 1.99E + 13 1.99E + 24 2.43E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F135 1.51E + 109 9.25E + 128 9.25E + 128 9.25E + 128 9.25E + 128 9.25E + 128 9.25E + 128 9.25E + 128 9.25E + 128 9.25E + 128 9.25E + 128
F136 0.00E + 00 5.50E−12 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.60E−06 0.00E + 00 7.40E−02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F137 2.00E + 01 1.54E + 01 1.62E + 01 1.02E + 01 1.86E + 01 0.00E + 00 1.85E + 01 4.78E + 00 8.87E + 00 2.96E + 00 0.00E + 00
F138 7.76E + 03 2.79E + 03 0.00E + 00 1.30E + 04 8.25E + 02 0.00E + 00 2.75E + 04 1.26E + 04 1.07E + 02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F139 2.76E−02 9.91E−03 0.00E + 00 5.64E−02 8.54E−01 0.00E + 00 3.44E + 03 9.00E + 02 5.67E−01 7.04E−01 0.00E + 00
F140 5.35E−03 4.26E−02 0.00E + 00 2.74E−09 4.20E−01 0.00E + 00 4.16E + 04 6.00E + 03 7.96E−03 3.35E−01 0.00E + 00
F141 9.22E−10 9.35E−10 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.41E−02 2.36E−03 1.40E−11 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F142 4.88E + 01 1.28E + 02 0.00E + 00 2.12E + 02 5.82E + 01 0.00E + 00 5.28E + 02 4.05E + 02 6.96E + 00 2.03E + 01 0.00E + 00
F143 4.45E + 09 5.13E + 02 9.44E + 03 5.30E−07 3.85E + 08 1.04E + 04 1.06E + 11 3.55E + 08 2.45E + 02 1.11E + 02 9.59E + 03
F144 3.12E + 01 4.15E + 00 1.22E + 02 9.16E−06 2.52E + 01 0.00E + 00 7.87E + 04 1.46E + 03 2.18E−10 3.29E + 00 2.27E−04
F145 7.71E + 03 3.96E + 01 4.88E + 01 3.59E + 01 1.44E + 04 0.00E + 00 1.34E + 08 2.59E + 06 4.69E + 01 4.74E + 01 6.66E−07
317

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Table 4  (continued)
318

No. Alternative metaheuristic algorithms

BIA BBBC BOA CPA CSS GSO JA RFO TWO WDO FHO

13
F146 1.24E + 01 5.00E−01 2.15E−01 7.30E + 00 4.50E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.36E + 01 8.28E + 00 4.54E−01 9.99E−02 0.00E + 00
F147 7.63E + 05 1.94E−03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.07E + 05 0.00E + 00 1.69E + 08 1.86E + 06 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F148 1.72E + 22 3.66E−05 5.41E + 21 0.00E + 00 6.44E + 18 0.00E + 00 3.34E + 28 6.16E + 22 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F149 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.18E−12 0.00E + 00 1.85E−09 4.30E−08 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F150 2.30E−04 2.63E−03 9.10E + 00 1.06E−04 9.93E−03 4.09E + 05 1.50E + 04 4.66E + 01 4.91E−01 6.49E−02 1.97E−10
F151 4.65E + 02 2.65E + 00 0.00E + 00 8.13E−06 2.19E + 02 0.00E + 00 1.27E + 03 4.49E + 02 2.29E−10 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F152 2.87E + 01 1.73E−01 0.00E + 00 3.07E + 01 1.15E + 01 0.00E + 00 5.44E + 01 2.34E + 01 3.20E−09 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F153 1.21E + 39 1.78E + 03 1.15E + 62 1.92E−02 2.37E + 09 0.00E + 00 7.47E + 53 7.32E + 36 2.27E + 01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F154 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.37E−06 0.00E + 00 3.95E + 08 6.09E + 05 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F155 2.71E−04 2.93E−03 9.05E + 00 1.94E−04 1.10E−02 4.09E + 05 1.50E + 04 4.45E + 01 4.55E−01 4.45E−02 1.08E−08
F156 0.00E + 00 9.14E + 01 2.73E + 02 1.08E + 02 3.21E + 02 0.00E + 00 2.72E + 02 2.17E + 02 8.59E + 01 1.71E + 02 4.96E−03
F157 4.03E−05 2.52E−04 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 7.63E−06 5.00E + 03 5.64E + 02 0.00E + 00 5.07E−03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F158 6.23E + 02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.91E + 02 0.00E + 00 1.25E + 03 4.27E + 02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F159 1.39E + 04 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.53E + 03 0.00E + 00 5.66E + 04 7.60E + 03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F160 1.40E + 04 0.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.65E + 03 0.00E + 00 5.55E + 04 6.14E + 03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F161 0.00E + 00 2.10E + 01 1.56E + 02 1.70E + 01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.23E + 02 0.00E + 00 4.90E + 01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F162 8.66E + 00 1.13E + 01 7.59E−02 1.36E + 01 7.10E + 00 0.00E + 00 4.12E + 01 2.01E + 01 2.68E + 00 2.63E−01 0.00E + 00
F163 1.28E−03 5.13E−02 0.00E + 00 2.19E−10 1.94E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.30E + 04 3.17E + 03 9.97E−02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F164 1.98E + 02 1.84E + 02 0.00E + 00 1.84E + 02 1.55E−01 0.00E + 00 8.27E + 02 7.94E + 02 1.83E + 02 3.04E + 02 0.00E + 00
F165 7.08E + 06 1.52E + 02 2.20E + 04 9.17E + 02 4.28E + 07 1.96E + 04 2.45E + 07 1.72E + 06 3.17E + 01 5.53E + 03 1.94E + 04
F166 5.67E−01 1.26E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.17E + 00 6.74E−03 8.06E−04 1.90E + 04 0.00E + 00 8.68E + 01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F167 3.60E + 05 1.63E + 02 1.37E + 02 9.74E + 01 7.45E + 04 0.00E + 00 1.41E + 06 1.21E + 05 3.38E + 00 5.79E−02 0.00E + 00
F168 3.10E−01 4.53E−01 6.37E−01 4.38E−01 9.19E−02 0.00E + 00 6.83E−01 7.12E−01 1.04E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F169 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
M. Azizi et al.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Table 4  (continued)
No. Alternative metaheuristic algorithms
BIA BBBC BOA CPA CSS GSO JA RFO TWO WDO FHO

F170 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F171 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F172 2.19E + 03 3.05E−01 7.42E−07 2.34E + 07 2.67E−10 0.00E + 00 1.60E + 13 3.81E + 07 4.24E−10 1.16E−11 0.00E + 00
F173 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F174 1.02E−04 7.87E−06 2.58E−05 6.99E−08 1.52E−06 1.53E−06 2.87E−06 2.11E−06 4.82E−06 1.30E−06 3.30E−07
F175 1.17E + 02 6.87E−03 0.00E + 00 1.86E + 01 7.49E + 00 0.00E + 00 5.88E + 02 5.05E + 02 5.94E + 01 7.21E + 01 0.00E + 00
F176 1.47E + 01 2.32E−01 0.00E + 00 2.00E + 01 7.56E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.01E + 01 1.41E + 01 1.07E−11 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F177 9.90E + 00 2.63E + 00 0.00E + 00 5.19E−02 4.26E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.72E + 02 8.24E + 01 3.36E−02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F178 3.04E−04 1.25E−03 0.00E + 00 5.12E−05 6.37E−02 0.00E + 00 3.07E + 04 1.66E + 02 1.56E + 01 2.04E−01 0.00E + 00
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm

F179 4.80E + 07 1.04E + 00 0.00E + 00 3.61E−06 2.34E + 07 0.00E + 00 2.12E + 10 1.74E + 08 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F180 1.97E−06 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 5.76E−07 3.07E−07 0.00E + 00 4.41E + 00 1.44E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F181 1.30E−03 7.33E−04 0.00E + 00 1.48E−06 1.51E−01 0.00E + 00 4.88E−01 5.24E−01 1.45E−01 1.48E−01 0.00E + 00
F182 0.00E + 00 1.78E−04 0.00E + 00 7.11E−07 1.49E−01 3.45E−08 4.73E−01 5.22E−01 1.07E−01 1.13E−01 6.24E−03
F183 6.95E−01 1.16E + 00 9.97E−01 6.76E−01 1.61E + 02 2.50E−01 8.93E + 06 3.40E + 05 5.59E + 00 6.85E−01 2.50E−01
F184 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 4.81E−02 1.00E + 00
F185 6.33E−05 5.31E−05 0.00E + 00 9.51E−08 4.65E−04 0.00E + 00 9.99E−01 7.72E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F186 2.73E + 00 2.30E−02 0.00E + 00 5.47E−05 2.19E + 00 0.00E + 00 3.74E + 01 4.88E + 00 8.45E−03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F187 6.18E−08 1.52E−04 0.00E + 00 1.65E−06 1.61E + 01 0.00E + 00 2.27E + 06 8.42E + 04 1.81E−03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F188 4.78E + 32 4.74E + 29 3.81E + 33 3.26E + 22 6.42E + 32 0.00E + 00 1.12E + 33 2.83E + 32 1.13E + 30 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F189 6.86E + 01 8.39E + 01 0.00E + 00 7.98E + 01 5.83E + 01 0.00E + 00 8.98E + 01 8.77E + 01 4.05E + 01 3.22E + 01 0.00E + 00
F190 1.68E + 01 7.53E + 01 8.02E + 00 1.08E + 02 3.84E + 00 0.00E + 00 4.10E + 02 1.25E + 02 1.23E−05 4.04E−02 1.26E−04
F191 0.00E + 00 7.52E−02 3.46E + 50 0.00E + 00 1.51E−01 0.00E + 00 2.66E + 46 2.53E + 66 2.30E + 18 1.41E + 06 0.00E + 00
F192 0.00E + 00 8.27E−02 3.29E + 51 0.00E + 00 1.77E−01 0.00E + 00 2.47E + 46 2.43E + 66 5.47E + 18 4.34E + 02 0.00E + 00
F193 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
319

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Table 4  (continued)
320

No. Alternative metaheuristic algorithms

BIA BBBC BOA CPA CSS GSO JA RFO TWO WDO FHO

13
F194 0.00E + 00 5.18E−11 2.53E−09 0.00E + 00 3.93E−04 0.00E + 00 3.03E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F195 4.25E + 01 3.43E + 01 3.75E + 01 2.53E + 01 3.97E + 01 0.00E + 00 4.14E + 01 9.84E + 00 2.52E + 01 1.82E + 01 0.00E + 00
F196 3.32E + 04 2.87E + 04 0.00E + 00 7.52E + 04 1.37E + 04 0.00E + 00 1.36E + 05 6.62E + 04 2.87E + 03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F197 1.86E−01 1.13E−01 0.00E + 00 1.49E + 00 8.29E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.42E + 04 2.72E + 03 7.45E + 00 9.82E−01 0.00E + 00
F198 3.62E−02 2.35E−01 0.00E + 00 1.29E−03 2.01E + 01 0.00E + 00 1.54E + 05 1.61E + 04 5.63E−02 1.92E + 00 0.00E + 00
F199 1.08E−09 1.30E−09 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 8.54E−02 2.36E−03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F200 1.14E + 02 4.05E + 02 0.00E + 00 5.47E + 02 2.86E + 02 0.00E + 00 1.18E + 03 9.30E + 02 6.62E + 01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F201 1.09E + 10 4.90E + 03 1.16E + 05 9.78E + 00 6.18E + 08 8.33E + 04 3.34E + 11 1.99E + 09 4.11E + 03 3.36E + 03 8.25E + 04
F202 7.70E + 01 1.59E + 01 2.97E + 02 2.93E−01 2.42E + 02 0.00E + 00 3.37E + 05 7.13E + 03 1.04E + 02 8.94E + 00 2.21E−04
F203 4.55E + 05 1.00E + 02 9.88E + 01 9.00E + 01 1.34E + 05 0.00E + 00 4.27E + 08 8.28E + 06 9.91E + 01 9.79E + 01 2.34E−04
F204 1.83E + 01 1.30E + 00 2.61E−01 2.09E + 01 7.21E + 00 0.00E + 00 3.95E + 01 1.27E + 01 1.60E + 00 9.99E−02 0.00E + 00
F205 8.81E + 06 3.52E−02 0.00E + 00 1.85E−04 5.81E + 05 0.00E + 00 5.35E + 08 5.60E + 06 5.43E−09 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F206 1.11E + 23 9.28E−01 7.45E + 29 0.00E + 00 5.84E + 21 0.00E + 00 9.50E + 30 1.06E + 25 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F207 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 4.49E−09 1.96E−07 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F208 1.37E + 01 1.35E−02 1.97E + 01 4.81E−02 5.66E−01 8.18E + 05 5.43E + 04 9.41E + 01 1.44E + 02 2.91E−01 7.51E−06
F209 1.24E + 03 8.09E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.25E−01 5.22E + 02 0.00E + 00 3.03E + 03 8.66E + 02 3.65E−02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F210 3.45E + 01 7.02E + 00 0.00E + 00 5.68E + 01 1.40E + 01 0.00E + 00 7.77E + 01 2.58E + 01 3.02E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F211 5.07E + 93 2.38E + 53 2.41E + 138 2.96E + 03 2.21E + 40 0.00E + 00 2.67E + 123 4.73E + 74 4.45E + 02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F212 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 3.86E−02 0.00E + 00 7.21E + 09 2.15E + 06 1.06E−07 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F213 7.56E + 00 1.42E−02 1.85E + 01 6.09E−02 6.49E−01 8.18E + 05 5.42E + 04 9.40E + 01 1.59E + 02 2.78E−01 2.21E−05
F214 0.00E + 00 9.41E + 01 3.09E + 02 1.27E + 02 3.49E + 02 0.00E + 00 3.18E + 02 2.43E + 02 1.68E + 02 2.05E + 02 1.57E−03
F215 8.81E + 01 2.03E−03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 3.36E−03 1.00E + 04 1.68E + 03 0.00E + 00 5.40E + 01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F216 1.45E + 03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 4.00E + 01 4.86E + 02 0.00E + 00 2.98E + 03 9.16E + 02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F217 3.15E + 04 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.60E + 01 5.12E + 03 0.00E + 00 1.46E + 05 1.23E + 04 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
M. Azizi et al.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Table 4  (continued)
No. Alternative metaheuristic algorithms
BIA BBBC BOA CPA CSS GSO JA RFO TWO WDO FHO

F218 2.97E + 04 0.00E + 00 1.40E + 01 1.20E + 01 4.60E + 03 0.00E + 00 1.48E + 05 1.38E + 04 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F219 0.00E + 00 1.10E + 02 3.57E + 02 9.60E + 01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 3.34E + 02 0.00E + 00 1.60E + 02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F220 1.83E + 01 2.54E + 01 1.68E−01 3.09E + 01 2.44E + 01 0.00E + 00 9.57E + 01 4.12E + 01 1.09E + 01 1.45E−01 0.00E + 00
F221 4.44E−02 4.66E−01 0.00E + 00 3.92E−03 1.32E + 02 0.00E + 00 6.46E + 04 1.24E + 04 1.55E + 01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F222 5.09E + 02 4.10E + 02 0.00E + 00 4.38E + 02 6.38E + 01 0.00E + 00 2.14E + 03 1.81E + 03 7.97E + 02 7.35E + 02 0.00E + 00
F223 2.88E + 08 5.23E + 03 1.72E + 05 2.21E + 05 1.99E + 09 1.62E + 05 1.09E + 09 5.77E + 07 5.73E + 05 1.24E + 05 1.60E + 05
F224 2.13E + 01 8.02E + 00 0.00E + 00 7.63E + 01 6.44E−01 2.16E−03 3.94E + 05 0.00E + 00 2.19E + 03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F225 8.08E + 05 4.77E + 02 3.28E + 02 3.93E + 02 1.53E + 05 0.00E + 00 3.64E + 06 2.58E + 05 1.10E + 02 2.29E−01 0.00E + 00
F226 3.46E−01 4.97E−01 7.52E−01 4.84E−01 2.21E−01 0.00E + 00 7.97E−01 8.08E−01 1.27E−01 1.20E−01 0.00E + 00
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm

F227 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F228 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F229 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F230 1.29E + 13 3.81E + 11 1.80E + 50 2.02E + 28 3.10E−10 0.00E + 00 1.26E + 38 9.23E + 19 7.18E−07 1.89E−10 0.00E + 00
F231 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 1.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
F232 4.43E−05 1.29E−05 2.81E−07 1.19E−06 2.74E−06 1.42E−06 6.87E−06 8.97E−05 1.27E−05 8.69E−06 1.87E−07
F233 2.29E + 03 2.46E−01 0.00E + 00 7.84E + 02 1.10E + 02 0.00E + 00 1.75E + 03 1.53E + 03 1.52E + 02 5.94E + 02 0.00E + 00
321

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
322 M. Azizi et al.

Fig. 14  Convergence curves of the FHO for the mathematical functions

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 323

Fig. 14  (continued)

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
324 M. Azizi et al.

Fig. 14  (continued)

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 325

Fig. 14  (continued)

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
326 M. Azizi et al.

Fig. 14  (continued)

6 Statistical analysis

As the mean and standard deviation of the results do not effectively represent the over-
all performance of the algorithms in dealing with test functions, a complete statisti-
cal analysis was performed using the most conclusive statistical tests. Specifically, the
Kolmogorov Smirnov (KS) test was used for evaluating the normality of results, the
Mann Whitney (MW) test for two-by-two comparison of the summation of different
metaheuristics’ ranks, Wilcoxon (W) signed ranks test for two-by-two comparison of
the summation of different algorithms’ ranks, and the Kruskal Wallis (KW) test for
comparing the mean of the metaheuristic algorithms’ ranks for representing the overall
rankings of these algorithms. A Post Hoc (PH) analysis was also conducted for com-
prehensive comparative purposes.

6.1 Kolmogorov Smirnov (KS) test

The KS test was utilized to determine if the parametric or non-parametric statistical

tests should be conducted on the collected dataset, considering the mathematical test
functions and alternative metaheuristic algorithms. Specifically, if the p value of this
statistical test is less than 0.05, the dataset is not distributed normally and the non-
parametric test should be considered. If p value > 0.05, then parametric test should be
conducted. Table 5 provides the results of this test for the collected dataset in the pre-
vious section regarding the SS, 50D, and 100D test functions. Based on the results,
it is obvious that the non-parametric statistical tests, including the W, MW, and KW
tests, should be determined for further investigation.

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Table 5  The KS test results (p values) for different metaheuristic algorithms
Main algorithm Function type Data type Alternative metaheuristic algorithms
BIA BBBC BOA CPA CSS GSO JA RFO TWO WDO

FHO SS Min 6.95E−04 4.73E−12 1.22E−02 1.00E + 0 1.94E−03 3.36E−15 1.26E−22 2.19E−34 9.40E−01 6.92E−07
Mean 3.20E−11 9.99E−15 6.95E−04 9.40E−01 3.92E−05 4.73E−12 1.79E−21 1.62E−29 3.16E−03 3.30E−08
Std 1.15E−16 4.80E−22 2.85E−06 9.40E−01 7.24E−08 1.18E−09 7.49E−29 3.44E−30 3.92E−05 9.99E−15
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm

Fun. Evl 2.01E−10 1.00E−18 6.92E−07 1.17E−03 4.73E−12 6.59E−21 1.21E−25 7.49E−29 9.99E−15 3.20E−11
50D Min 3.23E−11 2.04E−12 2.85E−03 2.37E−05 2.48E−14 1.00E + 0 2.36E−19 1.09E−15 1.61E−07 6.67E−04
Mean 1.54E−09 4.40E−10 2.85E−03 1.61E−07 4.87E−13 4.87E−13 7.70E−18 5.30E−15 1.61E−07 2.37E−05
Std 1.69E−08 5.31E−08 5.70E−02 1.32E−06 8.27E−12 8.27E−12 5.30E−15 4.87E−13 4.69E−07 5.76E−05
Fun. Evl 4.40E−10 2.04E−12 8.27E−12 8.27E−12 1.12E−13 1.69E−08 5.30E−15 2.04E−12 8.27E−12 1.21E−10
100D Min 1.21E−10 3.23E−11 6.67E−04 4.40E−10 5.30E−15 9.99E−01 2.36E−19 1.09E−15 1.54E−09 1.35E−04
Mean 1.21E−10 3.23E−11 6.67E−04 1.21E−10 1.12E−13 4.87E−13 1.37E−18 1.09E−15 3.23E−11 2.37E−05
Std 1.54E−09 1.54E−09 3.37E−02 1.54E−09 2.04E−12 8.27E−12 2.48E−14 4.87E−13 1.21E−10 3.06E−04
Fun. Evl 4.40E−10 8.27E−12 8.27E−12 8.27E−12 2.48E−14 5.31E−08 5.30E−15 4.87E−13 8.27E−12 1.21E−10
327

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 328

Table 6  The MW test results (summation of ranks) for different metaheuristic algorithms
Main algorithm Function type Data type Alternative metaheuristic algorithms

13
BIA BBBC BOA CPA CSS GSO JA RFO TWO WDO

FHO SS Min. 15271.50 16788.50 15120.00 13925.50 15554.50 17338.50 18647.00 19583.00 14177.00 16105.50
12223.50 10706.50 12375.00 13569.50 11940.50 10156.50 8848.00 7912.00 13318.00 11389.50
Mean 17372.50 17231.00 15449.50 14053.50 15991.50 17000.00 18435.00 19433.00 15117.00 16556.50
10122.50 10264.00 12045.50 13441.50 11503.50 10495.00 9060.00 8062.00 12378.00 10938.50
Std. 17694.00 17766.00 15827.00 14136.50 16391.00 16318.00 18524.00 19309.00 15519.00 16944.00
9801.00 9729.00 11668.00 13358.50 11104.00 11177.00 8971.00 8186.00 11976.00 10551.00
Fun. Evl. 15778.00 17902.00 15882.00 14760.00 16565.00 16281.00 18557.00 18877.00 16794.00 16186.00
11717.00 9593.00 11613.00 12735.00 10930.00 11214.00 8938.00 8618.00 10701.00 11309.00
50D Min. 4523.50 4549.50 3876.00 4178.00 4700.00 3331.50 4857.00 4713.50 4320.00 3890.00
2262.50 2236.50 2910.00 2608.00 2086.00 3454.50 1929.00 2072.50 2466.00 2896.00
Mean 4464.50 4458.50 3809.00 4358.50 4673.00 4561.50 4850.00 4678.50 4354.50 4085.00
2321.50 2327.50 2977.00 2427.50 2113.00 2224.50 1936.00 2107.50 2431.50 2701.00
Std. 4368.50 4351.50 3708.00 4278.00 4625.50 4470.00 4750.00 4584.00 4290.50 4023.00
2417.50 2434.50 3078.00 2508.00 2160.50 2316.00 2036.00 2202.00 2495.50 2763.00
Fun. Evl. 4380.00 4547.00 4347.50 4444.00 4617.00 4171.00 4644.00 4586.00 4483.50 4320.00
2406.00 2239.00 2438.50 2342.00 2169.00 2615.00 2142.00 2200.00 2302.50 2466.00
100D Min. 4555.50 4585.50 3925.50 4498.50 4719.50 3325.00 4870.50 4730.50 4464.50 3964.00
2230.50 2200.50 2860.50 2287.50 2066.50 3461.00 1915.50 2055.50 2321.50 2822.00
Mean 4559.00 4581.50 3886.00 4574.00 4739.00 4596.00 4845.00 4721.50 4608.50 4076.50
2227.00 2204.50 2900.00 2212.00 2047.00 2190.00 1941.00 2064.50 2177.50 2709.50
Std. 4464.00 4474.00 3780.00 4486.00 4637.00 4505.00 4726.00 4611.00 4526.00 4012.00
2322.00 2312.00 3006.00 2300.00 2149.00 2281.00 2060.00 2175.00 2260.00 2774.00
Fun. Evl. 4380.00 4549.00 4339.00 4534.00 4586.50 4128.00 4613.00 4590.00 4511.00 4311.00
2406.00 2237.00 2447.00 2252.00 2199.50 2658.00 2173.00 2196.00 2275.00 2475.00
M. Azizi et al.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 329

6.2 Mann Whitney (MW) test

In this statistical test, the null hypothesis denotes the difference between two randomly
selected variables from different datasets by considering the summation of the varia-
bles’ ranks. In other words, the statistical dataset with smaller summation of ranks has
better statistical behavior. In Table 6, the results of the MW test, including the summa-
tion of ranks for different metaheuristics in dealing with the SS, 50D and 100D func-
tions, are presented in a two-by-two manner. In this table, if the summations of ranks
regarding MW test in the second rows are lower than the values in the first rows, FHO is
superior to the other metaheuristics. It should be noted that the proposed FHO has lower
summation of ranks in most of the cases, which verifies its superiority over the other
algorithms.

6.3 Wilcoxon (W) signed ranks test

In this section, the results of the W test are presented, in which the means of ranks are con-
sidered in a two-by-two manner for comparative purposes. The null hypothesis of this test
denotes the difference between two randomly selected variables from two datasets, con-
sidering the mean of the variables’ ranks. In this test, the dataset with the lower mean of
ranks represents better statistical behavior. The results of this test in dealing with the SS,
50D and 100D functions, including the summation of ranks for the considered alternative
metaheuristic algorithms, are provided in Table 7 in a two-by-two manner. In this table, if
the summation of ranks regarding W test in the second rows are lower than the values in
the first rows, FHO is superior to the other metaheuristics. It is obvious that FHO provides
a lower mean of ranks in most of the cases and, thus, outranks the other algorithms.

6.4 Kruskal Wallis (KW) test

The KW test is a well-known statistical test in which the overall rankings of multiple vari-
ables in different datasets are considered. Since the previously conducted MW and W tests
are applied in a two-by-two manner based on the summation and mean of ranks, the KW
test is utilized for comparing the mean of ranks between different datasets simultaneously.
In this test, the dataset with the lower mean of ranks has better statistical behavior. The
result of the KW test for different metaheuristics in dealing with the considered SS, 50D
and 100D mathematical test functions are presented in Figs. 15, 16, and 17, respectively,
in which the results of the algorithms with lowest mean of ranks (superior to others) are
bolded. Again, it is obvious that FHO provides a lower mean of ranks in all of the cases
and outranks the other algorithms accordingly.

6.5 Post Hoc (PH) analysis

In most statistical investigations, additional analyses are conducted for further evalua-
tion and comparison of the statistical data from a different point-of-view. In this work, the
results of the KW test were considered as the base data for PH analysis, in which the over-
all rankings of different metaheuristics were determined by considering the results of 233

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 330

Table 7  The W test results (mean of ranks) for different metaheuristic algorithms
Main algorithm Function type Data type Alternative metaheuristic algorithms

13
BIA BBBC BOA CPA CSS GSO JA RFO TWO WDO

FHO SS Min. 1442 3003 1451 26 799 2440 4861 5900 192 2080
388 0 379 19 21 45 89 95 18 0
Mean 4902 5386 2668 691 2625 3570 6013 6638 1745 3784
558 179 987 485 778 258 428 32 811 132
Std. 4563 5044 2589 618 2604 2838 5600 6264 1678 3711
588 521 651 558 799 817 841 406 950 205
Fun. Evl. 3956 4340 4262 3430 4152 5300 4358 4360 4290 4002
994 31 1624 1035 313 1603 13 11 175 369
50D Min. 1151 1122 327 650 1461 71 1540 1275 807 338
74 103 24 91 24 34 0 0 96 68
Mean 1135 1162 422 1010 1563 1241 1596 1326 987 618
90 113 13 118 33 34 0 0 94 85
Std. 1158 1061 314 958 1462 1183 1493 1283 938 563
67 164 121 123 78 42 47 43 97 103
Fun. Evl. 1035 1031 992 1072 1031 1480 1035 1030 1031 1035
93 4 89 9 4 231 0 5 4 0
100D Min. 1159 1078 375 1025 1326 68 1485 1275 944 366
17 98 3 56 0 37 0 0 46 69
Mean 1238 1180 459 1279 1485 1289 1485 1326 1279 560
37 146 37 99 0 37 0 0 47 70
Std. 1219 1196 372 1239 1415 1229 1441 1281 1213 533
56 130 124 139 70 46 44 45 113 97
Fun. Evl. 1041 1035 997 1035 1035 1471 1035 1035 1035 1035
87 0 84 0 0 240 0 0 0 0
M. Azizi et al.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 331

Fig. 15  The KW test results including mean of the ranks considering SS mathematical test functions: a
min, b mean, c Std., d Fun. Evl

Fig. 16  The KW test results including mean of the ranks considering 50D mathematical test functions: a
min, b mean, c Std., d Fun. Evl

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
332 M. Azizi et al.

Fig. 17  The KW test results including mean of the ranks considering100D mathematical test functions: a
min, b mean, c Std., d Fun. Evl

Fig. 18  The PH analysis results including mean of ranks for all of the considered mathematical test func-
tions: a min, b mean, c Std., d Fun. Evl

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 333

Table 8  Summary of the CEC 2020 bound constraint benchmark problems (Yue et al. 2020)
Fun. No. Function detail D Fun. Min.

Unimodal function G1 Shifted and rotated bent cigar function (CEC 2017[4] 5 100
F1)
Basic functions G2 Shifted and rotated Schwefel’s function (CEC 5 1100
2014[3] F11)
G3 Shifted and rotated Lunacek bi-Rastrigin function 5 700
(CEC 2017[4] F7)
G4 Expanded Rosenbrock’s plus Griewangk’s function 5 1900
(CEC2017[4] f19)
Hybrid functions G5 Hybrid function 1 (N = 3) (CEC 2014[3] F17) 5 1700
G6 Hybrid function 2 (N = 4) (CEC 2017[4] F16) 5 1600
G7 Hybrid function 3 (N = 5) (CEC 2014[3] F21) 5 2100
Composition func- G8 Composition function 1 (N = 3) (CEC 2017[4] F22) 5 2200
tions G9 Composition function 2 (N = 4) (CEC 2017[4] F24) 5 2400
G10 Composition function 3 (N = 5) (CEC 2017[4] F25) 5 2500

D Dimension, Fun. No. Function Number, Fun. Min. Function Minimum, Search range [− 100,100]D

mathematical functions simultaneously. According to the overall rankings of metaheuris-

tics in Fig. 18, it is apparent that FHO has a higher ranking (bolded values) in all cases.

7 Bound constraint benchmark problems of CEC 2020

Regarding the fact that the proposed metaheuristic algorithms should be evaluated by
means of difficult optimization problems which have been benchmarked in the competi-
tions, one of the recent Competitions on Evolutionary Computation (CEC) about the single
objective bound constrained numerical optimization as CEC 2020 which is proposed by
Yue et al. (2020) including 10 of the well-established benchmark mathematical test prob-
lems is utilized in this paper to thoroughly investigate the overall behavior of the FHO in
order to demonstrate its capability in dealing with the complex problems by comparing
to the state-of-the-art algorithms. A brief description of these problems are presented in
Table 13 while the complete mathematical formulation of these problems are presented in
(Sallam et al. 2020; Yue et al. 2020).
Since the proposed metaheuristic algorithms should be evaluated using difficult opti-
mization problems that have been benchmarked in competition, such as the Competitions
on Evolutionary Computation (CEC). Recently, CEC 2020 on the single objective bound
constrained numerical optimization was proposed by Yue et al. (2020). Herein, ten of the
well-established benchmark mathematical test problems from CEC 2020 were utilized to
thoroughly investigate the overall behavior of FHO and demonstrate its capability in deal-
ing with the complex problems via comparison to other state-of-the-art algorithms. A brief
description of these problems are presented in Table 8, while the complete mathematical
formulation of these problems are given in (Yue et al. 2020).
The comparative results of FHO and other alternative metaheuristic algorithm, obtained
from CEC 2020, are presented in Tables 9, 10, 11, regarding the 30 optimization runs that
were conducted for statistical purposes. By considering the best, mean, and standard devi-
ation of these runs for FHO and the alternative methods, it can be concluded that FHO

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 334

13
Table 9  The best results of multiple optimization runs regarding CEC 2020 for different algorithms
Approaches G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10

IMODE 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 5.15E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
EBO with CMAR 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 5.15E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.00E + 02
HSES 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 5.15E + 00 1.09E−01 9.95E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.00E + 02 3.47E + 02
LSHADE-cnEpSin 0.00E + 00 1.25E−01 1.03E−01 3.53E−07 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 3.00E + 02
LSHADE-SPACMA 0.00E + 00 6.90E−03 5.15E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 3.47E + 02
j2020 0.00E + 00 2.00E−04 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
GSK 0.00E + 00 6.14E−01 4.38E−07 1.67E−03 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00
FHO (Present study) 0.00E + 00 2.33E + 00 5.38E + 00 1.05E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00

IMODE Improved Multi-Operator Differential Evolution (Sallam et al. 2020), EBOwithCMAR Effective Butterfly Optimizer with Covariance Matrix Adapted Retreat Phase
(Sallam et al. 2020), HSES Hybrid Sampling Evolution Strategy (Sallam et al. 2020), LSHADE-cnEpSin LSHADE with an Ensemble Sinsoidal Parameter Adaptation (Sallam
et al. 2020), LSHADE-SPACMA LSHADE with Semi-Parameter Adaptation and Covariance Matrix Adaptation (Sallam et al. 2020), j 2020 Developed Differential Evolution
(Brest et al. 2020), GSK Gaining Sharing Knowledge based algorithm (Mohamed et al. 2020)
M. Azizi et al.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Table 10  The mean results of multiple optimization runs regarding CEC 2020 for different algorithms
Approaches G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10

IMODE 0.00E + 00 8.33E−02 5.15E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.44E + 02
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm

EBO with CMAR 0.00E + 00 1.54E−01 5.19E + 00 6.07E−02 1.41E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.21E + 01 9.67E + 01 3.38E + 02
HSES 0.00E + 00 4.76E + 01 5.41E + 00 2.57E−01 3.32E + 00 2.50E−01 4.16E + 00 4.76E + 01 1.00E + 02 3.47E + 02
LSHADE-cnEpSin 0.00E + 00 2.98E + 00 1.30E + 00 6.88E−02 1.40E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 3.14E−01 3.33E + 00 3.02E + 02
LSHADE-SPACMA 0.00E + 00 4.42E−01 5.25E + 00 9.81E−06 2.08E−02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 9.67E + 01 3.47E + 02
j2020 0.00E + 00 3.23E + 00 3.42E + 00 7.68E−02 1.37E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 6.28E−01 2.05E + 01 1.26E + 02
GSK 0.00E + 00 1.64E + 01 2.87E + 00 1.11E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 3.33E + 01 2.25E + 02
FHO (Present study) 0.00E + 00 1.00E + 01 6.34E + 00 2.86E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.02E + 02 3.47E + 02
335

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 336

13
Table 11  The standard deviation of the results regarding multiple optimization runs for different algorithms considering CEC 2020
Approaches G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10

IMODE 0.00E + 00 8.89E−02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.36E + 02
EBO with CMAR 0.00E + 00 1.02E−01 8.35E−02 2.54E−02 3.89E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 3.08E + 01 1.83E + 01 4.57E + 01
HSES 0.00E + 00 5.91E + 01 1.97E−01 1.17E−01 2.12E + 00 3.11E−01 2.16E + 01 3.84E + 01 2.52E−11 1.17E−02
LSHADE-cnEpSin 0.00E + 00 3.27E + 00 6.96E−01 3.91E−02 3.66E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.72E + 00 1.83E + 01 8.65E + 00
LSHADE-SPACMA 0.00E + 00 1.24E + 00 1.43E−01 5.37E−05 1.14E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.83E + 01 5.23E−04
j2020 0.00E + 00 3.74E + 00 2.33E + 00 6.40E−02 2.86E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 2.39E + 00 3.75E + 01 9.03E + 01
GSK 0.00E + 00 2.58E + 01 2.05E + 00 6.05E−02 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 4.79E + 01 1.32E + 02
FHO (Present study) 0.00E + 00 8.71E + 00 8.01E−01 1.06E−01 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 0.00E + 00 1.12E + 02 1.17E−02
M. Azizi et al.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 337

exhibits the ability to equally compete with these algorithms. The values in Table 9 are
the error values between the global optimum solutions and the optimum values calculated
by each algorithm while the values in Tables 10 and 11 are the related mean and standard
deviation of these error values.
Four prominent statistical analyses, including Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS), Wilcoxon
(W), Mann–Whitney (MW), and Kruskal–Wallis (KW), were used to make a better judg-
ment about the performance of the FHO in dealing with the CEC 2020 bound-constrained
test functions. In Table 12, the p values of the KS, MW, and W statistical tests are pre-
sented for comparative purposes, while in Table 13, the maximum difference between dif-
ferent approaches are presented considering the KS, MW, and W statistical tests in which
the capability of the FHO is in perspective. It is obvious that the summation (MW test) and
mean (W test) of ranks in FHO is lower than the other approaches in most of the cases,
which represent the ability of the FHO in dealing with these kinds of difficult problems.
In Table 14, the overall rankings of the algorithms in dealing with CEC 2020 benchmark
test functions are presented in which the mean of ranks are in perspective. It should also be
noted that FHO has the third ranking, which is somehow acceptable.
In order to obtain better judgment about the performance of FHO in dealing with the
CEC 2020 bound constrained test functions, four well-known statistical analyses, includ-
ing Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS), Wilcoxon (W), Mann–Whitney (MW) and Kruskal–Wal-
lis (KW), were utilized. In Table 12, the p values of the KS, MW, and W statistical tests are
presented for comparative purposes. Table 13 displays the maximum difference between
different approaches, i.e. KS, MW and W statistical tests, in which the capability of FHO
is in perspective. It is obvious that the summation (MW test) and mean (W test) of ranks
in FHO is lower than the other approaches in most of the cases, which represents the pro-
posed algorithm’s ability to handle these kinds of difficult problems. In Table 13, the over-
all rankings of the algorithms in dealing with CEC 2020 benchmark test functions are pre-
sented, including the mean of ranks. It should also be noted that FHO has the third rank,
which is somehow acceptable regarding the fact that the first two are amongst the most
powerful and well-formulated algorithms which can be a great challenge for the improved
versions of FHO to compete with in the future.

8 Computational complexity and cost analysis

In recent decades, complexity issues have been a major concern of new algorithms due to
their importance in conducting time- and complexity-efficient optimization procedures. For
this purpose, the computational complexity procedures of the CEC 2020 benchmark suit
on bound constrained were utilized. In these functions, T0 denotes the run time of a spe-
cific mathematical procedure as presented in detail by Yue et al. (2020) as follows which
should be repeated for 1,000,000 times:
x √ x
x + 2 (11)
x = 0.55;x = x + x;x = ;x = x ∗ x;x = x;x = log(x);x = exp(x);x =
2
TheT1 refers to the computational time for 200,000 function evaluations of G1 func-
tion; T2 presents the computational time of the considered algorithms (FHO in this paper)
considering 200,000 function evaluations for G1 function; and T̂2 is the mean value of five
calculations of T2. Table 15 presents the computational time complexity results of FHO

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 338

13
Table 12  The p-values of different statistical tests considering CEC 2020 test functions
Main algorithm Statistical test Alternative metaheuristic algorithms
IMODE EBOwithCMAR HSES LSHADE-cnEpSin LSHADE-SPACMA j2020 GSK

FHO KS test 2.00E−01 9.36E−01 2.59E−02 7.60E−01 9.97E−01 9.97E−01 9.97E−01

MW test 5.64E−02 5.40E−01 2.10E−02 4.46E−01 9.23E−01 8.10E−01 9.74E−01
W test 1.71E−02 4.46E−01 7.65E−02 2.15E−01 3.40E−02 1.36E−01 4.14E−01
M. Azizi et al.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 339

Table 13  The maximum difference of metaheuristics considering CEC 2020 test functions
Main algo- Statistical test Alternative metaheuristic algorithms
rithm
IMODE EBOwithC- HSES LSHADE- LSHADE- j2020 GSK
MAR cnEpSin SPACMA

FHO KS test 0.27 0.13 0.37 0.17 0.10 0.10 0.10

MW test 808 954 1066.5 964 921.5 930.5 912.5
1022 876 763.5 866 908.5 899.5 917.5
W test 12 68 212 57 27 45 33
79 103 88 114 109 108 58

Table 14  The KW test results Rankings Algorithms Mean of Ranks

(mean of the ranks) considering
CEC 2020 test functions
1 IMODE 86.43
2 GSK 113.43
3 FHO 115.43
4 LSHADE-SPACMA 116.52
5 j2020 119.60
6 EBOwithCMAR 126.42
7 LSHADE-cnEpSin 128.43
8 HSES 157.73
Chi-sq 19.540088
Prob > Chi-sq 0.006653

We bold our method; you can change it if necessary

Table 15  Computational Metaheuristics Properties Results

time complexity of different
algorithms regarding CEC 2020
IMODE T0 0.01117 s
complexity procedure
T1 0.2235 s
̂2
T 0.3330 s
̂2 − T1)∕T0
(T 0.9780 (unitless)
j2020 T0 0* s
T1 0.0465 s
̂2
T 0.1818s
̂2 − T1)∕T0
(T Inf (unitless)
GSK T0 0.0411 s
T1 1.12E-05 s
̂2
T 1.76E-05 s
̂2 − T1)∕T0
(T 1.58E-04(unitless)
FHO (Present study) T0 0.0195 s
T1 0.0108 s
̂2
T 2.9279 s
̂2 − T1)∕T0
(T 149.5949(unitless)

*It is a rounded value

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
340 M. Azizi et al.

and other algorithms by means of the mentioned procedures, in which the superiority of
FHO is demonstrated.
In order to conduct the computational complexity analysis for a metaheuristic algo-
rithm, the “Big O notation” can be utilized as a well-known mathematical notation in com-
puter science. Herein, the required run time and memory usage of the algorithms were
determined for comparative purposes. It should be noted that it is common to set numeri-
cal values for the complexity of an algorithm for testing; however, finding a solution for
evaluating the run time issues in such algorithms is another concern that should be largely
considered. In this regard, other complexity procedures should be utilized, while the com-
plexity of an algorithm can be described regardless of the type of computer or hardware
restrictions. In computer science, “Big O notation” refers to the required run time and
memory usage of the algorithms, which are determined for comparative purposes. First,
NP is determined as the total number of initial solution candidates, and D is the dimension
of the considered problem. In the initialization phase of FHO, the computational complex-
ity is determined as O(NP × D), then the computational complexity of the objective func-
tion evaluation in this phase is calculated as O(NP) × O(F(x)), where F(x) is the objective
function of the considered problem. Each line in the main search loop of FHO has a com-
putational complexity equal to the total number of iterations (MxIter). The position updat-
ing process for each of the solution candidates in the search space has a computational
complexity of O(M × Iter × NP × D × 3) regarding the movements of Fire Hawks and prey.
Finally, the objective function evaluation in the main search loop of the FHO has a compu-
tational complexity of O(M × Iter × NP × D × 3) × O(F(x)).
To further investigate the complexity issues of FHO, the balance between exploration
and exploitation was considered as a key factor that lends insight about the convergence
speed, which is one critical property of metaheuristic algorithms. Therefore, the diversity
graphs for the FHO algorithm in dealing with F2, F8, F24, F47, F50, F61, F66, and F78
mathematical test functions were obtained and are depicted in Figs. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,

Fig. 19  Diversity plots of F2 function considering FHO

Fig. 20  Diversity plots of F8 function considering FHO

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 341

Fig. 21  Diversity plots of F24 function considering FHO

Fig. 22  Diversity plots of F47 function considering FHO

Fig. 23  Diversity plots of F50 function considering FHO

Fig. 24  Diversity plots of F61 function considering FHO

25, 26, respectively. It is obvious that the current population of FHO tends to localize the
search during the optimization process for providing optimum results.

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
342 M. Azizi et al.

Fig. 25  Diversity plots of F66 function considering FHO

Fig. 26  Diversity plots of F78 function considering FHO

9 Real‑world constrained optimization problems of CEC 2020

Often, the capability of a metaheuristic algorithm can be determined using real-world opti-
mization problems, in which some sort of design constraints and bound constraints should
be considered for obtaining proper or feasible solutions. In this regard, the capability of
FHO was evaluated in dealing with the mentioned problems to make a valid judgment
about its overall performance. To do so, the real-world constraint optimization problems
from CEC 2020 (Kumar et al. 2020) and some other structural engineering problems from
the literature were selected for numerical investigations. A brief description of these prob-
lems is presented in Table 16, while the complete mathematical formulation of these prob-
lems can be found in the literature. It is pertinent to mention that 25 independent optimi-
zation runs were conducted by using 20,000 function evaluations, and a simple penalty
approach was utilized for constraint handling purposes.
In Tables 17 and 18, the comparative results of FHO and other algorithms are presented,
including the design variables related to the best optimization run and the statistical results

Table 16  Basic characteristics No. Name D g h

of the considered real-world
constrained problems
H1 Tension/compression spring 3 4 0
H2 Speed reducer 7 11 0
H3 Step-cone pulley 5 8 3
H4 Multiple disk clutch brake 5 8 0

D Dimensions, g Number of inequality constraints, h Number of

equality constraints

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 343

Table 17  Best results of different approaches for the tension or compression spring
Coello (2000); Coe- Ray and Liew Han et al. (2018) Gandomi et al. Present study
llo Coello (2000) (2003) (2013b) (FHO)

Best 0.0127047800 0.0126692000 0.0126653400 0.0126652200 0.0126652328

d 0.0514800000 0.0521600000 0.0516800000 0.0516900000 0.0516880695
D 0.3516610000 0.3681590000 0.3565001000 0.3567300000 0.3566938859
N 11.6322010000 10.6484420000 11.3018335000 11.2885000000 11.2903643694
g1(x) − 0.0033370000 − 0.0000000075 − 0.0000062180 0.0000000000 0.0000000000
g2(x) − 0.0001100000 − 0.0000000037 − 0.0000016910 0.0000000000 0.0000000000
g3(x) − 4.0263180000 − 4.0758050000 − 4.0533150000 − 4.0538000000 − 4.0537385161
g4(x) − 0.7312390000 − 0.7197870000 − 0.7278799000 − 0.7277000000 − 0.7277453631

D diameter of the coil, d diameter of the wire, N number of active coils

Table 18  Statistical results for the tension or compression spring considering different approaches
Approaches Best Mean Worst Std-dev

Coello (2000) 0.0127047800 0.0127692000 0.0128220800 0.0000393900

Ray and Liew (2003) 0.0126692000 0.0129227000 0.0167172000 0.0000519850
Han et al. (2018) 0.0126653400 0.0126859200 0.0127296800 0.0000216720
Gandomi et al. (2013b) 0.0126652200 0.0135005200 0.0168954000 0.0014202720
Present study (FHO) 0.0126652328 0.0126768632 0.0127196031 0.0000153798

of 25 optimization runs. It is obvious that FHO provides very competitive result in this
case.
In Tables 19 and 20, the best and statistical results of the conducted 25 optimiza-
tion runs by FHO are compared with those of other algorithms reported in the litera-
ture. It can be seen that best result of multiple runs was achieved by FHO (2994.44),
which can be compared to 2994.47 of another algorithm, thus verifying the acceptable
performance of FHO. Meanwhile, the FHO is capable of providing better statistical
results, including the mean of multiple runs which is 2994.46.
Tables 21 and 22 present the competitive and statistical results of multiple
metaheuristics in dealing with the step-cone pulley constraint problem. It is apparent
that the results of FHO are superior, achieving the best optimum value of 16.07 for the
objective function, while the other algorithms could only provide 16.63.
In Tables 23 and 24, the competitive and statistical results of multiple metaheuris-
tics in dealing with the multiple disk clutch brake constraint problem are presented. It
can be seen that FHO achieved the best optimum value of 0.26 for the objective func-
tion, which is superior the other algorithms could only provide 0.31.
Comparison of the results of FHO and other metaheuristics from literature demon-
strates that this algorithm is capable of yielding acceptable results in dealing with the
complex optimization problems of CEC 2020 and other challenges. Besides, the sta-
tistical results of FHO, including the mean, worst, and standard deviation, of 25 inde-
pendent optimization runs were also outstanding compared to the other approaches.

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
344 M. Azizi et al.

Table 19  Best results of different approaches for the speed reducer problem
Mezura-Montes Akhtar et al. Gandomi et al. Zhang et al. Present study
et al. (2003) (2002) (2013a) (2008) (FHO)

Best 3025.00500000 3008.08000000 3000.98100000 2994.47106600 2994.44536810

b 3.50616300 3.50612200 3.50150000 3.50000000 3.50001119
m 0.70083100 0.70000600 0.70000000 0.70000000 0.70000014
z 17.00000000 17.00000000 17.00000000 17.00000000 17.00000087
l1 7.46018100 7.54912600 7.60500000 7.30000000 7.30070577
l2 7.96214300 7.85933000 7.81810000 7.71531991 7.71553368
d1 3.36290000 3.36557600 3.35200000 3.35021467 3.35054862
d2 5.30900000 5.28977300 5.28750000 5.28665447 5.28665896
g1(x) − 0.07770000 − 0.07550000 − 0.07430000 − 0.0739152 − 2.15510628
g2(x) − 0.20130000 − 0.19940000 − 0.19830000 − 0.1979985 − 98.13683213
g3(x) − 0.47410000 − 0.45620000 − 0.43490000 − 0.9999967 − 1.92404012
g4(x) − 0.89710000 − 0.89940000 − 0.90080000 − 0.9999995 − 18.30831434
g5(x) − 0.01100000 − 0.01320000 − 0.00110000 − 0.66685260 − 0.00626454
g6(x) − 0.01250000 − 0.00170000 − 0.00040000 − 0.0000000 − 0.00213570
g7(x) − 0.70220000 − 0.70250000 − 0.70250000 − 0.70250000 − 28.09999703
g8(x) − 0.00060000 − 0.00170000 − 0.00040000 − 0.0000000 − 0.00001500
g9(x) − 0.58310000 − 0.58260000 − 0.58320000 − 0.5833333 − 6.99998500
g10(x) − 0.06910000 − 0.07960000 − 0.08900000 − 0.0513257 − 0.37488283
g11(x) − 0.02790000 − 0.01790000 − 0.01300000 − 0.0000000 − 0.00020882

m teeth module, b face width, l1 length of the first shaft between bearings, d1 diameter of the first shaft, z
number of teeth on pinion, l2 length of the second shaft between bearings, d2 diameter of the second shaft

Table 20  Statistical results for the speed reducer problem considering different approaches
Approaches Best Mean Worst Std-dev

Mezura-Montes et al. (2003) 3025.00500000 3088.77780000 3078.59180000 NA

Akhtar et al. (2002) 3008.08000000 3012.12000000 3028.28000000 NA
Gandomi et al. (2013a) 3000.98100000 3007.19970000 3.00900000 4.96340000
Zhang et al. (2008) 2994.47106600 2994.47106600 2994.47106600 0.00000000
Present study (FHO) 2994.44536810 2994.46114878 2994.49374909 0.02816046

Table 21  Best results of different approaches for the step-cone pulley problem
(TLBO) Rao et al. (2011) (WOA) Yildiz (WCA) Yildiz (MBA) Yildiz Present study (FHO)
et al. (2020) et al. (2020) et al. (2020)

Best 16.63451000 16.63452130 16.63450849 16.63450780 16.07152201

d1 40.00000000 40.00000000 40.00000000 40.00000000 38.39584030
d2 54.76430000 54.76432600 54.76430000 54.76430000 52.80599130
d3 73.01318000 54.76432600 54.76430000 54.76430000 70.40315003
d4 73.01318000 54.76432600 54.76430000 88.42841900 84.49831395
w 73.01318000 85.98629700 54.76430000 85.98624200 89.99992563

TLBO Teaching–Learning Based Optimization, WOA Whale Optimization Algorithm, WCA​Water Cycle Algo-
rithm, MBA Mine Blast Algorithm, w width of the pulley, d1, d2, d3, d4 diameters of the steps in the pulley

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 345

Table 22  Statistical results for the step-cone pulley problem considering different approaches
Approaches Best Mean Worst Std-dev

(TLBO) Rao et al. (2011) 16.63451000 24.01135770 74.02295100 0.34000000

(WOA) Yildiz et al. (2020) 16.63452130 20.93829477 24.84882590 3.34980000
(WCA) Yildiz et al. (2020) 16.63450849 17.53037682 18.83302997 0.92290000
(MBA) Yildiz et al. (2020) 16.63450780 16.70253500 18.32371450 0.26270000
Present study (FHO) 16.07152201 16.16353730 16.69908957 0.21014841

Table 23  Best results of different approaches for the multiple disk clutch brake problem
Deb and Srinivasan Eskandar et al. Rao et al. (2011) Ferreira et al. Present study (FHO)
(2006) (2012) (2018)

Best 0.47040000 0.31365600 0.31365661 0.31365600 0.26092412

r1 70.00000000 70.00000000 70.00000000 70.00000000 70.67750992
r0 90.00000000 90.00000000 90.00000000 90.00000000 92.43421461
t 1.50000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000000 1.00000106
F 1000.00000000 910.00000000 810.00000000 830.00000000 908.65087360
Z 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 3.00000000 2.00048183
g1(x) 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 0.00000000 − 1.75670470
g2(x) − 22.00000000 − 24.00000000 − 24.00000000 − 24.00000000 − 25.49927407
g3(x) − 0.90050000 − 0.90948000 − 0.91942781 − 0.91743800 − 0.91849788
g4(x) − 9.79060000 − 9.80942900 − 9830.37109400 − 9.82618300 − 9.98544504
g5(x) − 7.89470000 − 7.89469600 − 7894.69659000 − 7.89469700 − 9.82141618
g6(x) − 3.35270000 − 2.23142100 − 0.70201320 − 0.17385500 − 14.98390798
g7(x) − 60.62500000 − 49.76874900 − 37706.25000000 − 40.11875000 − 89415.90309757
g8(x) − 11.64730000 − 12.76857800 − 14.29798680 − 14.82614500 − 0.01609202
r1 inner radius, t thickness of the disk, r0 outer radius, Z number of friction surfaces, F actuating force

Table 24  Statistical results for the multiple disk clutch brake problem considering different approaches
Approaches Best Mean Worst Std-dev

Eskandar et al. (2012) 0.31365600 0.31365600 0.31365600 0.00000000

Rao et al. (2011) 0.31365700 0.32716620 0.39207100 0.67000000
Ferreira et al. (2018) 0.31365600 0.31365600 0.31365600 0.00000000
Present study (FHO) 0.26092412 0.253219791 0.274830333 0.012228977

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
346 M. Azizi et al.

Table 25  Optimum design sections of the 15-story benchmark structure

Groups HPSACO HBB–BC ICA (Kaveh DE ES–DE FHO (Present
(Kaveh & (Kaveh and and Siamak (Talatahari (Talatahari study)
Talatahari, Talatahari Talatahari et al. 2015) et al. 2015)
2009) 2010a) 2010b)

1 W21X111 W24X117 W24X117 W21X122 W18X106 W24X104

2 W18X158 W21X132 W21X147 W33X141 W36X150 W33X152
3 W10X88 W12X95 W27X84 W14X82 W12X79 W16X77
4 W30X116 W18X119 W27X114 W30X108 W27X114 W24X104
5 W21X83 W21X93 W14X74 W30X108 W30X90 W14X74
6 W24X103 W18X97 W18X86 W12X79 W10X88 W14X90
7 W21X55 W18X76 W12X96 W14X61 W18X71 W14X61
8 W27X114 W18X65 W24X68 W18X71 W18X65 W18X65
9 W10X33 W18X60 W10X39 W6X25 W8X28 W6X20
10 W18X46 W10X39 W12X40 W24X62 W12X40 W14X43
11 W21X44 W21X48 W21X44 W21X48 W21X48 W21X44
Weight (kN) 426.36 434.54 417.47 423.83 415.06 390.87

HPSACO Hybrid algorithm based on particle swarm, ant colony and harmony search algorithms, HBB–
BC Hybrid big bang-big crunch and particle swarm optimization algorithms, ICA Imperialist Competitive
Algorithm, DE Differential Evolution, ES–DE Hybrid eagle strategy algorithm with differential evolution

10 Structural optimization

Metaheuristic algorithms are one type of method to solve various optimization prob-
lems in different fields regardless of the possible multi-level complexity of these
problems, which presents great challenges. Accordingly, the capability of these algo-
rithm should be evaluated by means of difficult optimization problems, including the
optimizing real-size structural frame designs of buildings. To perform a comparative
investigation of such challenges, two benchmark structural frame design optimization
problems, namely 15-story and 24-story buildings with steel wide flange sections as
structural elements, were selected for further investigation. The first design example
has 3 bays and 15 stories with a total number of 105 structural elements combined
in 11 design groups. The second design problem has 3 bays with 24 stories with a
total number of 268 structural elements combined into 20 design groups (Davison and
Adams 1974).
The results of the weight optimization procedure for the considered benchmark
structural frames of 15- and 24- stories utilizing FHO are provided in Tables 25 and
26, in which the results of the other algorithms are also presented for comparative
purposes. It is obvious that FHO, again, produced outstanding results in dealing with
these complex problems.

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 347

Table 26  Optimum design sections of the 24-story benchmark structure

Groups ACO (Camp HS IACO (Kaveh ICA (Kaveh DE ES–DE FHO
et al. 2005) (Degertekin, and Siamak and Siamak (Talatahari (Talatahari (Present
2008) Talatahari Talatahari et al. 2015) et al. 2015) study)
2010a) 2010b)

1 W30X90 W30X90 W30X99 W30X90 W30X90 W30X90 W30X90

2 W8X18 W10X22 W16X26 W21X50 W21X48 W21X55 W21X48
3 W24X55 W18X40 W18X35 W24X55 W21X44 W21X48 W21X48
4 W8X21 W12X16 W14X22 W8X28 W27X129 W10X45 W18X46
5 W14X145 W14X176 W14X145 W14X109 W14X176 W14X145 W14X159
6 W14X132 W14X176 W14X132 W14X159 W14X120 W14X109 W14X120
7 W14X132 W14X132 W14X120 W14X120 W14X132 W14X99 W14X109
8 W14X132 W14X109 W14X109 W14X90 W14X132 W14X145 W14X74
9 W14X68 W14X82 W14X48 W14X74 W14X109 W14X109 W14X68
10 W14X53 W14X74 W14X48 W14X68 W14X53 W14X48 W14X43
11 W14X43 W14X34 W14X34 W14X30 W14X61 W14X38 W14X30
12 W14X43 W14X22 W14X30 W14X38 W14X30 W14X30 W14X34
13 W14X145 W14X145 W14X159 W14X159 W14X99 W14X99 W14X99
14 W14X145 W14X132 W14X120 W14X132 W14X132 W14X132 W14X109
15 W14X120 W14X109 W14X109 W14X99 W14X109 W14X109 W14X99
16 W14X90 W14X82 W14X99 W14X82 W14X74 W14X68 W14X109
17 W14X90 W14X61 W14X82 W14X68 W14X82 W14X68 W14X74
18 W14X61 W14X48 W14X53 W14X48 W14X82 W14X68 W14X61
19 W14X30 W14X30 W14X38 W14X34 W14X48 W14X61 W14X38
20 W14X26 W14X22 W14X26 W14X22 W14X82 W14X22 W14X22
Weight 980.63 956.13 967.33 946.25 997.56 945.15 910.72
(kN)

ACO Ant colony optimization, HS Harmony search algorithm, IACO Improved ant colony optimization

11 Conclusions

In this study, the FHO is proposed as a novel metaheuristic algorithm motivated by the for-
aging behavior of whistling kites, black kites, and brown falcons. These birds follow spe-
cific actions to catch prey, including setting fire to prey-dominant areas, and thus are called
Fire Hawks. To evaluate the performance of this algorithm, a total of 233 mathematical
functions with dimensions varying from 2 to 100 were utilized as test functions, while a
maximum number of 150,000 function evaluations and 100 optimization runs were con-
sidered in the optimization process. A total of 10 alternative metaheuristic algorithms were
utilized for comparative purposes, and well-known statistical analyses were also conducted
to further verify the capability of FHO. In addition, two of the latest Competitions on Evo-
lutionary Computation (CEC), i.e. CEC 2020 on bound constraint problems and CEC 2020
on real-world optimization problems, were considered for the performance evaluation of
FHO in addition to complete computational cost and complexity analyses. The results of
this research are summarized as follows:

• FHO outranks the compared algorithms in the selected mathematical test functions, by
converging to the predefined tolerance of the global best in a faster and more efficient way.

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
348 M. Azizi et al.

• FHO is able to converge to the global best of the mathematical test functions by requir-
ing a lower number of objective function evaluations, which proves its efficiency from
a computational point-of-view.
• The W and MW statistical test results prove that FHO provides lower values for mean
and summation of ranks in a two-by-two comparison, which demonstrates the ability of
this algorithm from statistical view point.
• FHO outranks the other algorithms in terms of the mean of ranks in the KW test,
whereby FHO has a lower mean, proving it comparable capability with the alternative
methods.
• FHO ranks third among seven of the well-established metaheuristic algorithms of the
CEC 2020 completion on bound constraints, which is a step forward for the future chal-
lenges, while further study is suggested to improve FHO with a better ranking.
• By evaluating the results of FHO in dealing with the CEC 2020 real-size optimization
problems, it is proved that FHO has the ability to yield acceptable results in these cases.
• FHO provides better and even more outstanding results in dealing with the structural
engineering design problems compared to the state-of-the-art algorithms from CEC 2020.

For future research, FHO can be implemented in different fields of optimization by con-
sidering complex constraint problems, while improving the general formulation of this
algorithm.

Appendix

See Table 27.

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Table 27  The mean of function evaluations for metaheuristic algorithms considering mathematical test functions
No. Alternative metaheuristic algorithms
BIA BBBC BOA CPA CSS GSO JA RFO TWO WDO FHO

F1 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.46E + 05 2.52E + 04 1.50E + 05 2.61E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.41E + 05 7.87E + 03 8.00E + 03
F2 6.30E + 04 2.25E + 04 1.33E + 03 2.15E + 03 3.88E + 03 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.15E + 04 6.06E + 03 4.10E + 03
F3 5.00E + 01 1.50E + 05 1.12E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F4 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.31E + 04 1.97E + 04 1.50E + 05 2.76E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.36E + 05 1.41E + 05 7.19E + 03
F5 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.98E + 04 7.41E + 04 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.76E + 04 1.50E + 05 8.91E + 03
F6 1.49E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.54E + 04 3.40E + 04 5.00E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.35E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.45E + 04
F7 1.37E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 9.93E + 03 3.06E + 04 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.59E + 04 1.50E + 05 3.92E + 03
F8 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 4.63E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F9 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.98E + 04 1.50E + 04 1.48E + 05 1.34E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 7.83E + 04 6.05E + 03 5.82E + 03
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm

F10 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.31E + 04 1.49E + 04 1.48E + 05 1.40E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 7.80E + 04 4.54E + 03 5.41E + 03
F11 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.98E + 04 2.38E + 04 1.44E + 05 1.34E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 7.54E + 04 4.56E + 03 8.08E + 03
F12 1.47E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.64E + 04 3.92E + 04 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 6.22E + 04 1.50E + 05 6.05E + 03
F13 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F14 1.02E + 05 1.36E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.45E + 04 1.15E + 04 1.53E + 05 1.49E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.21E + 04 1.21E + 05 4.95E + 04
F15 1.46E + 05 5.00E + 01 1.44E + 05 5.20E + 01 5.95E + 02 3.06E + 02 1.00E + 02 3.66E + 02 3.10E + 02 1.57E + 02 2.23E + 03
F16 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.65E + 04 1.42E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.77E + 04 7.41E + 03 5.32E + 03
F17 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F18 1.46E + 05 1.50E + 05 6.14E + 04 1.05E + 04 6.74E + 04 9.82E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.70E + 04 3.32E + 03 4.43E + 03
F19 3.77E + 03 3.95E + 04 5.69E + 03 1.08E + 03 1.96E + 03 1.53E + 05 1.41E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.79E + 04 9.53E + 03 3.77E + 03
F20 5.00E + 01 1.28E + 05 2.24E + 04 6.43E + 03 1.50E + 04 3.06E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.04E + 05 1.50E + 05 9.53E + 03
F21 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.03E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.12E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.49E + 05
F22 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.03E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.47E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.46E + 05
F23 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.66E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F24 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.27E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F25 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 4.43E + 04 9.47E + 04 6.79E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 7.04E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.42E + 04
349

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Table 27  (continued)
350

No. Alternative metaheuristic algorithms

BIA BBBC BOA CPA CSS GSO JA RFO TWO WDO FHO

13
F26 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.46E + 05 1.35E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.46E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F27 1.30E + 04 4.27E + 03 3.80E + 04 9.48E + 02 2.14E + 03 1.53E + 05 1.37E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 04 3.80E + 03 2.41E + 03
F28 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.40E + 05 1.33E + 04 1.50E + 05 7.49E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 7.53E + 04 1.50E + 05 7.92E + 03
F29 1.30E + 05 1.47E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.14E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 4.84E + 04 1.39E + 05 5.50E + 03
F30 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.36E + 04 1.21E + 04 5.43E + 04 1.08E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 6.40E + 04 3.66E + 03 6.32E + 03
F31 1.40E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.03E + 04 3.01E + 04 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.54E + 04 1.50E + 05 3.96E + 03
F32 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.79E + 04 5.57E + 04 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 7.08E + 04 1.50E + 05 8.24E + 03
F33 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F34 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.34E + 04 1.18E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 6.63E + 04 1.50E + 05 4.88E + 03
F35 3.14E + 04 1.14E + 05 5.30E + 03 1.69E + 03 2.55E + 03 1.53E + 05 1.24E + 05 1.49E + 05 1.51E + 04 2.36E + 04 7.16E + 03
F36 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.97E + 04 6.75E + 04 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 9.80E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.48E + 04
F37 1.08E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.52E + 04 8.90E + 02 1.22E + 03 1.53E + 05 1.36E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.03E + 04 3.79E + 03 1.29E + 03
F38 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F39 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.59E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F40 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.31E + 04 7.22E + 04 3.40E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.69E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.17E + 04
F41 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.35E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F42 1.29E + 05 1.46E + 05 1.25E + 04 6.10E + 03 6.84E + 03 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.15E + 04 1.40E + 05 9.70E + 03
F43 1.29E + 05 1.50E + 05 6.85E + 04 1.77E + 04 3.19E + 04 7.62E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.38E + 04 3.15E + 03 7.28E + 03
F44 6.50E + 01 1.50E + 05 9.31E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F45 2.49E + 03 3.04E + 04 3.40E + 03 3.79E + 02 2.44E + 02 3.12E + 02 2.29E + 03 9.65E + 04 7.76E + 02 1.87E + 02 4.68E + 02
F46 1.78E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.97E + 04 1.83E + 03 5.60E + 03 1.53E + 05 1.49E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.06E + 04 7.23E + 04 3.87E + 03
F47 1.84E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 9.12E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.29E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.49E + 05
F48 1.80E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.03E + 04 1.49E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.31E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.49E + 05
F49 8.50E + 01 1.50E + 05 1.24E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
M. Azizi et al.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Table 27  (continued)
No. Alternative metaheuristic algorithms
BIA BBBC BOA CPA CSS GSO JA RFO TWO WDO FHO

F50 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.06E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F51 3.26E + 03 6.25E + 02 6.30E + 02 3.27E + 02 2.62E + 02 1.82E + 03 4.63E + 03 9.68E + 04 1.36E + 03 3.43E + 02 6.85E + 02
F52 8.52E + 03 7.83E + 04 3.17E + 04 1.28E + 03 2.62E + 04 9.46E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.49E + 05 9.31E + 04 1.15E + 04
F53 1.48E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.65E + 04 5.40E + 04 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.47E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.54E + 04
F54 5.00E + 01 1.50E + 05 3.46E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.06E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F55 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.74E + 04 3.29E + 04 2.46E + 04 7.99E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 6.12E + 04 1.15E + 05 1.51E + 04
F56 1.49E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.02E + 04 1.50E + 05 8.77E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.52E + 04
F57 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.74E + 04 3.29E + 04 2.46E + 04 7.99E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 6.12E + 04 1.15E + 05 1.51E + 04
F58 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 4.25E + 04 1.50E + 05 8.87E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.48E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.61E + 04
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm

F59 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.88E + 04 6.53E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.52E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.47E + 05 6.02E + 04 5.60E + 04
F60 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.00E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F61 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.00E + 02 2.71E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 7.74E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.98E + 04
F62 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.22E + 04 1.99E + 04 1.25E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 6.10E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.19E + 04
F63 1.18E + 05 1.44E + 05 1.84E + 04 8.47E + 04 7.37E + 03 1.53E + 05 6.90E + 04 1.49E + 05 8.66E + 03 1.14E + 05 6.12E + 04
F64 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 7.21E + 04 1.89E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.35E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.39E + 04 4.80E + 03 5.94E + 03
F65 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 7.12E + 04 1.80E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.28E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 7.85E + 04 4.44E + 03 5.44E + 03
F66 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 9.06E + 04 4.07E + 03 1.50E + 05 2.72E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.70E + 04
F67 1.42E + 05 2.07E + 04 1.12E + 05 2.44E + 03 1.34E + 05 4.87E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.72E + 04 1.75E + 03 4.86E + 03
F68 1.33E + 05 5.09E + 04 5.16E + 04 6.49E + 03 1.32E + 05 5.32E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.40E + 04 2.36E + 03 6.42E + 03
F69 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F70 1.20E + 05 4.07E + 03 5.29E + 04 2.17E + 03 9.87E + 04 1.53E + 05 1.35E + 05 1.49E + 05 1.49E + 04 1.46E + 03 3.72E + 03
F71 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.52E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.41E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.25E + 04
F72 5.00E + 01 1.50E + 05 4.59E + 03 2.00E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 9.93E + 04 1.50E + 05 7.09E + 03
F73 5.00E + 01 1.50E + 05 6.38E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.06E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
351

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Table 27  (continued)
352

No. Alternative metaheuristic algorithms

BIA BBBC BOA CPA CSS GSO JA RFO TWO WDO FHO

13
F74 5.00E + 01 2.57E + 04 5.02E + 03 2.38E + 03 3.83E + 03 3.06E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.17E + 05 1.47E + 05 8.38E + 03
F75 5.00E + 01 1.26E + 05 2.24E + 04 6.43E + 03 1.47E + 04 3.06E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 9.91E + 04 1.50E + 05 9.53E + 03
F76 1.23E + 05 1.46E + 05 3.72E + 03 7.93E + 04 3.04E + 04 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 4.97E + 04 1.49E + 05 1.47E + 04
F77 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.78E + 04 1.23E + 04 6.46E + 04 9.03E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.29E + 05 7.38E + 04 1.20E + 04
F78 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.43E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F79 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.71E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.41E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.22E + 04
F80 7.85E + 01 1.50E + 05 1.23E + 04 9.04E + 03 6.21E + 04 3.06E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.34E + 04 1.50E + 05 3.60E + 03
F81 4.11E + 03 1.50E + 05 4.22E + 04 2.04E + 04 1.50E + 05 2.08E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.21E + 05 6.91E + 03 8.72E + 03
F82 1.60E + 02 1.50E + 05 2.77E + 04 2.27E + 04 1.50E + 05 4.13E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.19E + 05 6.67E + 03 7.00E + 03
F83 5.40E + 01 1.49E + 05 1.81E + 04 1.46E + 04 1.11E + 05 3.06E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.38E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.63E + 04
F84 1.49E + 05 1.50E + 05 9.33E + 02 1.20E + 04 1.29E + 04 1.10E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 6.73E + 04 3.93E + 03 6.19E + 03
F85 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.48E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.46E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.44E + 04
F86 1.49E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.16E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.09E + 04
F87 7.48E + 04 3.51E + 03 6.31E + 03 9.81E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.45E + 05 1.44E + 05 1.35E + 04 9.09E + 02 1.25E + 03
F88 2.73E + 03 2.35E + 04 1.31E + 04 2.15E + 03 6.55E + 03 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.65E + 04 8.79E + 04 2.38E + 03
F89 2.71E + 04 2.73E + 04 1.22E + 04 9.76E + 02 9.46E + 02 1.53E + 05 1.41E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.26E + 04 9.95E + 02 1.39E + 03
F90 1.49E + 05 1.50E + 05 7.17E + 04 1.41E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.29E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 7.94E + 04 4.49E + 03 4.81E + 03
F91 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.39E + 04 2.61E + 04 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 6.28E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.10E + 04
F92 2.09E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.03E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.06E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.18E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.41E + 04
F93 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.99E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F94 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 4.06E + 04 3.53E + 04 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.41E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.71E + 04
F95 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F96 1.49E + 05 7.25E + 04 1.50E + 05 2.56E + 03 2.07E + 04 9.71E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.77E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.25E + 04
F97 6.75E + 01 5.15E + 01 9.66E + 04 8.45E + 01 7.00E + 02 1.53E + 05 2.32E + 02 2.00E + 02 6.07E + 02 2.68E + 02 3.55E + 03
M. Azizi et al.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Table 27  (continued)
No. Alternative metaheuristic algorithms
BIA BBBC BOA CPA CSS GSO JA RFO TWO WDO FHO

F98 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.39E + 05 5.58E + 04 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.49E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.72E + 04
F99 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.39E + 05 7.46E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.37E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.38E + 04
F100 1.50E + 05 1.05E + 05 9.90E + 03 3.45E + 04 1.50E + 05 2.31E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.74E + 04 4.61E + 03 7.57E + 03
F101 5.75E + 01 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 9.48E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.00E + 05
F102 1.49E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.49E + 05 1.07E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.45E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.95E + 04 1.38E + 05 3.92E + 04
F103 1.43E + 05 1.49E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.18E + 05 1.34E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.72E + 04
F104 6.59E + 03 1.34E + 03 1.50E + 05 4.76E + 03 6.13E + 04 1.53E + 05 1.45E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.45E + 03 9.30E + 03 7.01E + 03
F105 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 9.93E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F106 1.09E + 05 1.32E + 05 8.58E + 04 1.97E + 04 1.70E + 04 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.76E + 04 1.22E + 05 1.99E + 04
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm

F107 1.12E + 05 1.47E + 05 7.65E + 04 2.38E + 04 1.39E + 04 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.97E + 04 1.45E + 05 1.41E + 04
F108 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.49E + 05
F109 5.15E + 01 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F110 7.45E + 01 1.50E + 05 4.13E + 03 1.08E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.49E + 05 1.50E + 05 9.49E + 04
F111 1.50E + 05 1.35E + 05 8.74E + 03 9.22E + 04 2.96E + 04 1.53E + 05 1.25E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.61E + 03 1.28E + 05 1.16E + 04
F112 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F113 6.96E + 04 1.02E + 05 9.32E + 04 1.24E + 04 3.46E + 04 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.20E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.12E + 04
F114 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.14E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.25E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.83E + 04
F115 1.09E + 02 1.40E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.01E + 04 1.33E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.13E + 05 1.35E + 05 1.31E + 05
F116 5.05E + 01 1.25E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 04 3.14E + 04 3.06E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.02E + 04 1.38E + 05 1.01E + 04
F117 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.27E + 05
F118 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.36E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.45E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.21E + 04 5.05E + 02
F119 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 9.15E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 4.00E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.14E + 04 5.36E + 02
F120 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.49E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.60E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.37E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.60E + 02
F121 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.43E + 04 1.28E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.59E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 6.59E + 04 8.66E + 03 2.00E + 02
353

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Table 27  (continued)
354

No. Alternative metaheuristic algorithms

BIA BBBC BOA CPA CSS GSO JA RFO TWO WDO FHO

13
F122 1.50E + 05 3.91E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.37E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.58E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.74E + 04 3.48E + 03 3.92E + 01
F123 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.32E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 9.31E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.46E + 05
F124 5.00E + 01 1.50E + 05 1.86E + 04 1.49E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F125 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F126 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.27E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F127 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.92E + 04 1.45E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.59E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 7.58E + 04 1.00E + 04 3.47E + 02
F128 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.28E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.59E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.26E + 04 1.16E + 02
F129 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.39E + 04 1.42E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.59E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 6.10E + 04 7.38E + 03 1.37E + 02
F130 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.72E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.61E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 4.81E + 04 9.92E + 02
F131 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.26E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.74E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.36E + 05
F132 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.26E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F133 5.00E + 01 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 9.16E + 04 1.50E + 05 3.06E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.49E + 05 8.00E + 00
F134 5.00E + 01 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 9.36E + 04 1.50E + 05 3.06E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.00E + 00
F135 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F136 7.48E + 04 1.50E + 05 9.19E + 04 6.23E + 04 1.50E + 05 3.06E + 02 1.50E + 05 8.50E + 04 7.32E + 04 1.65E + 04 7.54E + 01
F137 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.06E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 4.70E + 02
F138 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.56E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.59E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.59E + 04 3.86E + 02
F139 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.57E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.05E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.41E + 02
F140 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.65E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.12E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.67E + 02
F141 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.62E + 04 8.18E + 04 1.41E + 05 8.59E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.11E + 04 7.00E + 01
F142 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.95E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.58E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.34E + 02
F143 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F144 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F145 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.43E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
M. Azizi et al.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Table 27  (continued)
No. Alternative metaheuristic algorithms
BIA BBBC BOA CPA CSS GSO JA RFO TWO WDO FHO

F146 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.60E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.73E + 02
F147 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.43E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.59E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 6.23E + 04 8.35E + 03 1.67E + 02
F148 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 7.68E + 04 1.50E + 05 8.58E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 4.25E + 04 5.43E + 03 1.76E + 02
F149 1.70E + 04 1.47E + 05 2.43E + 04 4.19E + 03 1.50E + 05 8.59E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.84E + 04 6.57E + 03 1.84E + 02
F150 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F151 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.37E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.60E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.52E + 04 8.71E + 02
F152 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.37E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.60E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.58E + 04 3.31E + 02
F153 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.60E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.56E + 04 8.91E + 02
F154 9.89E + 04 4.99E + 04 2.87E + 04 6.39E + 04 1.50E + 05 8.58E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.91E + 04 3.69E + 03 7.47E + 01
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm

F155 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F156 1.28E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.06E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F157 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.66E + 04 8.63E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.40E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.95E + 04 1.03E + 02
F158 1.50E + 05 3.06E + 04 8.70E + 03 1.34E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.58E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 4.03E + 04 2.97E + 03 1.15E + 02
F159 1.50E + 05 6.78E + 04 8.78E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.58E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 4.47E + 04 3.50E + 03 1.39E + 02
F160 1.50E + 05 6.80E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.58E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 4.37E + 04 2.89E + 04 2.09E + 02
F161 5.00E + 01 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.44E + 05 8.58E + 04 1.50E + 05 5.31E + 03 1.50E + 05 3.34E + 04 1.22E + 01
F162 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.64E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.90E + 03
F163 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.64E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.59E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.33E + 04 2.63E + 02
F164 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 7.29E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.62E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 9.93E + 03
F165 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F166 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.28E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.67E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.37E + 05 1.31E + 02
F167 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.42E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F168 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.58E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.49E + 05 1.62E + 02
F169 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.06E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.77E + 04
355

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Table 27  (continued)
356

No. Alternative metaheuristic algorithms

BIA BBBC BOA CPA CSS GSO JA RFO TWO WDO FHO

13
F170 5.00E + 01 5.00E + 01 1.00E + 02 5.00E + 01 4.80E + 01 3.06E + 02 1.00E + 02 5.00E + 01 5.00E + 01 5.00E + 01 8.00E + 00
F171 2.86E + 03 5.00E + 01 4.93E + 04 5.00E + 01 6.39E + 02 3.06E + 02 5.25E + 04 1.06E + 03 1.82E + 02 1.02E + 04 5.71E + 03
F172 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 9.19E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.09E + 02
F173 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.06E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 6.67E + 04
F174 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F175 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.61E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.58E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.35E + 02
F176 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.37E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.89E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.15E + 04 5.04E + 02
F177 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 9.47E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.84E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.09E + 04 6.33E + 02
F178 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.50E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.90E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.79E + 02
F179 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.45E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.89E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 7.04E + 04 8.48E + 03 2.21E + 02
F180 1.50E + 05 7.02E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.89E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.44E + 05 3.38E + 03 4.58E + 01
F181 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.37E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 9.64E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.47E + 05
F182 5.00E + 01 1.50E + 05 1.88E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F183 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F184 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 6.74E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F185 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.08E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.74E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 7.92E + 04 9.81E + 03 3.84E + 02
F186 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.53E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.89E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.58E + 04 1.28E + 02
F187 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.42E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.89E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 7.46E + 03 1.59E + 02
F188 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.89E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.49E + 04 1.47E + 03
F189 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.21E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.89E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.40E + 05
F190 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.32E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F191 5.05E + 01 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.44E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.06E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.00E + 00
F192 5.05E + 01 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.46E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.06E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.00E + 00
F193 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
M. Azizi et al.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Table 27  (continued)
No. Alternative metaheuristic algorithms
BIA BBBC BOA CPA CSS GSO JA RFO TWO WDO FHO

F194 1.08E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.08E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.06E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.49E + 05 1.45E + 05 1.29E + 04 8.13E + 01
F195 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.06E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 4.90E + 02
F196 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 7.88E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.89E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.61E + 04 4.28E + 02
F197 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.62E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.07E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.62E + 02
F198 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.67E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.12E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.84E + 02
F199 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.63E + 04 1.19E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.89E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.49E + 05 1.11E + 04 7.38E + 01
F200 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 7.74E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.89E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.42E + 05 3.26E + 02
F201 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F202 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.51E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm

F203 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.48E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F204 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.89E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 4.12E + 02
F205 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 5.46E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.89E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.04E + 03 1.92E + 02
F206 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.46E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.89E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.33E + 05 5.38E + 03 1.88E + 02
F207 2.56E + 04 1.44E + 05 2.44E + 04 5.94E + 03 1.47E + 05 8.89E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 6.01E + 04 6.75E + 03 2.19E + 02
F208 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F209 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.37E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.89E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.47E + 04 9.53E + 02
F210 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.37E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.89E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.60E + 04 3.40E + 02
F211 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.74E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.53E + 04 9.49E + 02
F212 1.38E + 05 8.87E + 04 2.89E + 04 1.48E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.89E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.75E + 03 8.12E + 01
F213 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F214 1.31E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.06E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F215 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.67E + 04 1.48E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.31E + 04 1.50E + 05 2.98E + 04 1.23E + 02
F216 1.50E + 05 6.45E + 04 8.49E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.89E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.35E + 05 2.94E + 03 1.17E + 02
F217 1.50E + 05 1.45E + 05 8.58E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.89E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.32E + 05 3.37E + 03 1.36E + 02
357

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
 Table 27  (continued)
358

No. Alternative metaheuristic algorithms

BIA BBBC BOA CPA CSS GSO JA RFO TWO WDO FHO

13
F218 1.50E + 05 1.48E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.89E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.26E + 05 2.00E + 04 3.10E + 02
F219 5.10E + 01 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.89E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.44E + 04 1.50E + 05 7.42E + 04 9.20E + 00
F220 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.89E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 4.49E + 03
F221 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.67E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.89E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.32E + 04 3.21E + 02
F222 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.17E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.91E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.32E + 04
F223 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F224 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 7.49E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.51E + 03 1.50E + 05 1.38E + 05 1.51E + 02
F225 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.44E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.48E + 05
F226 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.74E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.71E + 02
F227 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.06E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.29E + 04
F228 5.00E + 01 5.00E + 01 1.00E + 02 5.00E + 01 4.80E + 01 3.06E + 02 1.00E + 02 5.00E + 01 5.00E + 01 5.00E + 01 8.00E + 00
F229 4.65E + 02 5.00E + 01 8.72E + 03 5.00E + 01 5.28E + 01 3.06E + 02 1.00E + 02 4.78E + 02 5.00E + 01 2.20E + 02 1.13E + 01
F230 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.57E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 2.13E + 02
F231 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.06E + 02 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.12E + 05
F232 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.53E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05
F233 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 8.61E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 9.04E + 04 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 1.50E + 05 3.87E + 02
M. Azizi et al.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 359

Acknowledgements This research is supported by a research grant of the University of Tabriz (Grant No.
1615)

Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.

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
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
Abualigah L, Diabat A, Mirjalili S, Abd Elaziz M, Gandomi AH (2021a) The arithmetic optimization algo-
rithm. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 376:113609. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cma.​2020.​113609
Abualigah L, Yousri D, AbdElaziz M, Ewees AA, Al-qaness MAA, Gandomi AH (2021b) Aquila opti-
mizer: a novel meta-heuristic optimization algorithm. Comput Ind Eng 157:107250. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​cie.​2021b.​107250
Aghay Kaboli SH, Selvaraj J, Rahim NA (2017) Rain-fall optimization algorithm: a population based algo-
rithm for solving constrained optimization problems. J Comput Sci 19:31–42. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
jocs.​2016.​12.​010
Ahmia I, Aider M (2019) A novel metaheuristic optimization algorithm: the monarchy metaheuristic. Turk J
Electr Eng Comput Sci 27(1):362–376
Akhtar S, Tai K, Ray T (2002) A socio-behavioural simulation model for engineering design optimization.
Eng Optim 34(4):341–354. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03052​15021​2723
Alsattar HA, Zaidan AA, Zaidan BB (2020) Novel meta-heuristic bald eagle search optimisation algorithm.
Artif Intell Rev 53(3):2237–2264. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10462-​019-​09732-5
Arora S, Singh S (2019) Butterfly optimization algorithm: a novel approach for global optimization. Soft
Comput 23(3):715–734
Atashpaz-Gargari E, Lucas C (2007) Imperialist competitive algorithm: an algorithm for optimization
inspired by imperialistic competition. In 2007 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (pp 4661–
4667). IEEE. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​CEC.​2007.​44250​83
Azizi M (2021) Atomic orbital search: a novel metaheuristic algorithm. Appl Math Modell 93:657–683.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​apm.​2020.​12.​021
Azizi M, Ejlali RG, Mousavi Ghasemi SA, Talatahari S (2019a) Upgraded whale optimization algorithm for
fuzzy logic based vibration control of nonlinear steel structure. Eng Struct 192:53–70. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2019a.​05.​007
Azizi M, Mousavi A, Ejlali R, Talatahari S (2019b) Optimal tuning of fuzzy parameters for structural
motion control using multiverse optimizer. Struct Design Tall Spec Build. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​tal.​
1652
Azizi M, Ghasemi Seyyed Arash M, Ejlali Reza G, Talatahari S (2020a) Optimization of fuzzy controller
for nonlinear buildings with improved charged system search. Struct Eng Mech 76(6):781–797. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​12989/​SEM.​2020a.​76.6.​781
Azizi M, Mousavi A, Ejlali R, Talatahari S (2020b) Optimum design of fuzzy controller using hybrid ant lion
optimizer and Jaya algorithm. Artif Intell Rev 53:1–32. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10462-​019-​09713-8
Bayraktar Z, Komurcu M, Werner DH (2010) Wind Driven Optimization (WDO): a novel nature-inspired
optimization algorithm and its application to electromagnetics. 2010 IEEE Antennas and Propagation
Society International Symposium, 11–17 July 2010
Braik M, Sheta A, Al-Hiary H (2021) A novel meta-heuristic search algorithm for solving optimization
problems: capuchin search algorithm. Neural Comput Appl 33(7):2515–2547. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s00521-​020-​05145-6
Brammya G, Praveena S, Ninu Preetha N, Ramya R, Rajakumar B, Binu D (2019) Deer hunting optimi-
zation algorithm: a new nature-inspired meta-heuristic paradigm. Comput J. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​
comjnl/​bxy133

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
360 M. Azizi et al.

Brest J, Maučec MS, Bošković B (2020) Differential Evolution algorithm for single objective bound-con-
strained optimization: algorithm j2020. 2020 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC),
19–24 July 2020
Camp CV, Bichon BJ, Stovall SP (2005) Design of steel frames using ant colony optimization. J Struct Eng
131(3):369–379. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​0733-​9445(2005)​131:​3(369)
Coello CAC (2000) Use of a self-adaptive penalty approach for engineering optimization problems. Comput
Ind 41(2):113–127
Coello Coello CA (2000) Use of a self-adaptive penalty approach for engineering optimization problems.
Comput Ind 41(2):113–127. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0166-​3615(99)​00046-9
Daqiqnia AH, Fard Moradinia S, Baghalzadeh Shishehgarkhaneh M (2021) Toward nearly zero energy
building designs: a comparative study of various techniques. AUT J Civil Eng 5(2):12–12. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​22060/​ajce.​2021.​20458.​5771
Davison JH, Adams PF (1974) Stability of braced and unbraced frames. J Struct Div 100(2):319–334
de Melo VV, Banzhaf W (2018) Drone squadron optimization: a novel self-adaptive algorithm for global
numerical optimization. Neural Comput Appl 30(10):3117–3144
Deb K, Srinivasan A (2006) Innovization: Innovating design principles through optimization. In Proceed-
ings of the 8th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation (pp 1629–1636). https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1145/​11439​97.​11442​66
Degertekin SO (2008) Optimum design of steel frames using harmony search algorithm. Struct Multidiscip
Optim 36(4):393–401. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00158-​007-​0177-4
Dorigo M, Maniezzo V, Colorni A (1996) Ant system: optimization by a colony of cooperating agents.
IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B 26(1):29–41. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​3477.​484436
Eberhart R, Kennedy J (1995). A new optimizer using particle swarm theory MHS’95. Proceedings of the
Sixth International Symposium on Micro Machine and Human Science, (pp 39–43). IEEE. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1109/​MHS.​1995.​494215
Erol OK, Eksin I (2006) A new optimization method: big bang-big crunch. Adv Eng Softw 37(2):106–111.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​adven​gsoft.​2005.​04.​005
Eskandar H, Sadollah A, Bahreininejad A, Hamdi M (2012) Water cycle algorithm—a novel metaheuristic
optimization method for solving constrained engineering optimization problems. Comput Struct 110–
111:151–166. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​comps​truc.​2012.​07.​010
Feng Z-K, Niu W-J, Liu S (2021) Cooperation search algorithm: a novel metaheuristic evolutionary intel-
ligence algorithm for numerical optimization and engineering optimization problems. Appl Soft Com-
put 98:106734. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​asoc.​2020.​106734
Ferreira M, Lisboa M, Silva Neto A, Sacco W (2018) A constrained ITGO heuristic applied to engineering
optimization. Expert Syst Appl. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​eswa.​2018.​05.​027
Gandomi AH (2014) Interior search algorithm (ISA): a novel approach for global optimization. ISA Trans
53(4):1168–1183
Gandomi AH, Yang X-S, Alavi AH (2013a) Cuckoo search algorithm: a metaheuristic approach
to solve structural optimization problems. Eng Comput 29(1):17–35. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s00366-​011-​0241-y
Gandomi AH, Yang X-S, Alavi AH, Talatahari S (2013b) Bat algorithm for constrained optimization tasks.
Neural Comput Appl 22(6):1239–1255. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00521-​012-​1028-9
Geem ZW, Kim JH, Loganathan GV (2001) A new heuristic optimization algorithm: harmony search. SIM-
ULATION 76(2):60–68. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00375​49701​07600​201
Ghasemian H, Ghasemian F, Vahdat-Nejad H (2020) Human urbanization algorithm: a novel metaheuristic
approach. Math Comput Simul 178:1–15
Gholizadeh S, Salajegheh E (2009) Optimal design of structures subjected to time history loading by swarm
intelligence and an advanced metamodel. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 198(37–40):2936–2949
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. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​comps​truc.​2020.​106250
Han J, Yang C, Zhou X, Gui W (2018) A two-stage state transition algorithm for constrained engineer-
ing optimization problems. Int J Control Autom Syst 16(2):522–534. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s12555-​016-​0338-6
Hayyolalam V, Pourhaji Kazem AA (2020) Black widow optimization algorithm: a novel meta-heuristic
approach for solving engineering optimization problems. Eng Appl Artif Intell 87:103249. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​engap​pai.​2019.​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
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 361

Holland JH (1984) Genetic algorithms and adaptation. In: Selfridge OG, Rissland EL, Arbib MA (eds)
Adaptive control of Ill-defined systems. Springer, Boston, pp 317–333
Jamil M, Yang X-S (2013) A literature survey of benchmark functions for global optimisation problems. Int
J Math Modell Num Optim 4(2):150–194
Jamil M, Yang X-S, Zepernick H-J (2013) Test functions for global optimization: a comprehensive survey.
In: Yang X-S, Cui Z, Xiao R, HosseinGandomi A, Karamanoglu M (eds) Swarm intelligence and bio-
inspired computation. Elsevier, Hoboken, pp 193–222
Kallioras NA, Lagaros ND, Avtzis DN (2018) Pity beetle algorithm—a new metaheuristic inspired by the
behavior of bark beetles. Adv Eng Softw 121:147–166
Kaveh A, Seddighian MR, Ghanadpour E (2020) Black hole mechanics optimization: a novel meta-heuristic
algorithm. Asian J Civil Eng 21(7):1129–1149. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s42107-​020-​00282-8
Kaveh A, Talatahari S (2009) Hybrid algorithm of harmony search, particle swarm and ant colony for struc-
tural design optimization. In: Geem ZW (ed) Harmony search algorithms for structural design optimi-
zation. Springer, Berlin, pp 159–198
Kaveh A, Talatahari S (2010a) A discrete big bang-big crunch algorithm for optimal design of skeletal
structures. Asian J Civil Eng 11(1):103–122
Kaveh A, Talatahari S (2010b) An improved ant colony optimization for the design of planar steel frames.
Eng Struct 32:864–873. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2009.​12.​012
Kaveh A, Talatahari S (2010c) A novel heuristic optimization method: charged system search. Acta Mech
213(3):267–289. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00707-​009-​0270-4
Kaveh A, Talatahari S (2010d) Optimum design of skeletal structures using imperialist competitive algo-
rithm. Comput Struct 88:1220–1229. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​comps​truc.​2010.​06.​011
Kumar A, Wu G, Ali MZ, Mallipeddi R, Suganthan PN, Das S (2020) A test-suite of non-convex con-
strained optimization problems from the real-world and some baseline results. Swarm Evol Comput
56:100693. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​swevo.​2020.​100693
Li Z, Tam V (2020) A novel meta-heuristic optimization algorithm inspired by the spread of viruses.
ArXiv Preprint arXiv. https://​doi.​org/​10.​48550/​arXiv.​2006.​06282
Liang JJ, Suganthan PN, Deb K (2005) Novel composition test functions for numerical global optimi-
zation. In Proceedings 2005 IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium, 2005. SIS2005. (pp 68–75).
IEEE. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​SIS.​2005.​15016​04
Mezura-Montes E, Coello CC, Landa-Becerra R (2003) Engineering optimization using simple evo-
lutionary algorithm. InProceedings. 15th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial
Intelligence 2003 Nov 5 (pp 149–156). IEEE. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​TAI.​2003.​12501​83
Mirjalili S (2016) SCA: a sine cosine algorithm for solving optimization problems. Knowl Based Syst
96:120–133. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​knosys.​2015.​12.​022
Mirjalili S, Lewis A (2016) The whale optimization algorithm. Adv Eng Softw 95:51–67. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​adven​gsoft.​2016.​01.​008
Mirjalili S, Mirjalili SM, Lewis A (2014) Grey wolf optimizer. Adv Eng Softw 69:46–61. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​adven​gsoft.​2013.​12.​007
Mirjalili S, Mirjalili SM, Hatamlou A (2016) Multi-verse optimizer: a nature-inspired algorithm for
global optimization. Neural Comput Appl 27(2):495–513
Mohamed AW, Hadi AA, Mohamed AK, Awad NH (2020) Evaluating the performance of adaptive gain-
ingsharing knowledge based algorithm on CEC 2020 benchmark problems. 2020 IEEE Congress on
Evolutionary Computation (CEC), 19–24 July 2020
Nematollahi AF, Rahiminejad A, Vahidi B (2020) A novel meta-heuristic optimization method based on
golden ratio in nature. Soft Comput 24(2):1117–1151
Pham DT, Ghanbarzadeh A, Koç E, Otri S, Rahim S, Zaidi M (2006) The bees algorithm—a novel tool
for complex optimisation problems. In: Pham DT, Eldukhri EE, Soroka AJ (eds) Intelligent produc-
tion machines and systems. Elsevier Science Ltd, Hoboken, pp 454–459
Rao R (2016) Jaya: a simple and new optimization algorithm for solving constrained and unconstrained
optimization problems. Int J Ind Eng Comput 7(1):19–34
Rao RV, Savsani VJ, Vakharia DP (2011) Teaching–learning-based optimization: a novel method for
constrained mechanical design optimization problems. Comput Aided Des 43(3):303–315. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cad.​2010.​12.​015
Rashedi E, Nezamabadi-pour H, Saryazdi S (2009) GSA: a gravitational search algorithm. Inform Sci
179(13):2232–2248. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ins.​2009.​03.​004
Ray T, Liew KM (2003) Society and civilization: an optimization algorithm based on the simulation
of social behavior. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 7(4):386–396. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​TEVC.​2003.​
814902

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
362 M. Azizi et al.

Sadollah A, Sayyaadi H, Lee HM, Kim JH (2018) Mine blast harmony search: a new hybrid optimiza-
tion method for improving exploration and exploitation capabilities. Appl Soft Comput 68:548–564
Sallam KM, Elsayed SM, Chakrabortty RK, Ryan MJ (2020) Improved Multi-operator differential evolu-
tion algorithm for solving unconstrained problems. 2020 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Compu-
tation (CEC), 19–24 July 2020
Simon D (2008) Biogeography-based optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 12(6):702–713. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1109/​TEVC.​2008.​919004
Sörensen K, Sevaux M, Glover F (2018) A history of metaheuristics. In: Martí R, Panos P, Resende
MGC (eds) Handbook of heuristics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 1–18
Storn R, Price K (1997) Differential evolution–a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization
over continuous spaces. J Global Optim 11(4):341–359
Talatahari S, Azizi M (2020a) Optimal design of real-size building structures using quantum-behaved
developed swarm optimizer. Struct Design Tall Spec Build 29(11):e1747
Talatahari S, Azizi M (2020b) Optimization of constrained mathematical and engineering design prob-
lems using chaos game optimization. Comput Ind Eng 145:106560. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cie.​
2020b.​106560
Talatahari S, Azizi M (2020c) Optimum design of building structures using tribe-interior search algo-
rithm. Structures 28:1616–1633. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​istruc.​2020c.​09.​075
Talatahari S, Azizi M (2021a) Chaos game optimization: a novel metaheuristic algorithm. Artif Intell
Rev 54(2):917–1004. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10462-​020-​09867-w
Talatahari S, Azizi M (2021b) Tribe-charged system search for global optimization. Appl Math Model
93:115–133. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​apm.​2020.​12.​007
Talatahari S, Gandomi AH, Yang X-S, Deb S (2015) Optimum design of frame structures using the eagle
strategy with differential evolution. Eng Struct 91:16–25. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​engst​ruct.​2015.​02.​
026
Talatahari S, Azizi M, Gandomi AH (2021a) Material generation algorithm: a novel metaheuristic algorithm
for optimization of engineering problems. Processes 9(5):859. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​pr905​0859
Talatahari S, Azizi M, Toloo M (2021b) Fuzzy adaptive charged system search for global optimization.
Appl Soft Comput 109:107518. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​asoc.​2021b.​107518
Talatahari S, Azizi M, Tolouei M, Talatahari B, Sareh P (2021c) Crystal Structure Algorithm (CryS-
tAl): a metaheuristic optimization method. IEEE Access 9:71244–71261. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​
ACCESS.​2021c.​30791​61
Talatahari S, Jalili S, Azizi M (2021d) Optimum design of steel building structures using migration-based
vibrating particles system. Structures 33:1394–1413. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​istruc.​2021d.​05.​028
Talatahari S, Motamedi P, Farahmand Azar B, Azizi M (2021e) Tribe–charged system search for parameter
configuration of nonlinear systems with large search domains. Eng Optim 53(1):18–31. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1080/​03052​15X.​2019.​16967​86
Wang C, Koh JM, Yu T, Xie NG, Cheong KH (2020) Material and shape optimization of bi-directional
functionally graded plates by GIGA and an improved multi-objective particle swarm optimization
algorithm. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 366:113017
Xia L, Zhang L, Xia Q, Shi T (2018) Stress-based topology optimization using bi-directional evolution-
ary structural optimization method. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 333:356–370. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​cma.​2018.​01.​035
Yang X-S (2010a) A new metaheuristic bat-inspired algorithm. In: González JR, Pelta DA, Cruz C, Ter-
razas G, Krasnogor N (eds) Nature Inspired Cooperative Strategies for Optimization (NICSO 2010a).
Springer, Berlin, pp 65–74
Yang X-S (2010b) Test problems in optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1008.0549
Yang X-S (2012) Nature-inspired mateheuristic algorithms: success and new challenges. J Comput Eng
Inform Technol. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4172/​2324-​9307.​1000e​101
Yildiz AR, Abderazek H, Mirjalili S (2020) A comparative study of recent non-traditional methods for
mechanical design optimization. Arch Comput Methods Eng 27(4):1031–1048. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s11831-​019-​09343-x
Liang JJ, Qu BY, Suganthan PN, Liang JJ, Ali MZ, Qu BY, Awad NH, Biswas PP (2020) Problem defini-
tions and evaluation criteria for the CEC 2020 special session and competition on single objective
bound constrained numerical optimization. Technical Report 201911, Computational Intelligence
Laboratory, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou China and Technical Report, Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore
Zhang M, Luo W, Wang X (2008) Differential evolution with dynamic stochastic selection for constrained
optimization. Inform Sci 178(15):3043–3074. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ins.​2008.​02.​014

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Fire Hawk Optimizer: a novel metaheuristic algorithm 363

Zhang Y, Jin Z (2020) Group teaching optimization algorithm: a novel metaheuristic method for solving
global optimization problems. Expert Syst Appl 148:113246
Zhao W, Du C, Jiang S (2018) An adaptive multiscale approach for identifying multiple flaws based on
XFEM and a discrete artificial fish swarm algorithm. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 339:341–357

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

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at

[email protected]