biomimetics

Article
Kookaburra Optimization Algorithm: A New Bio-Inspired
Metaheuristic Algorithm for Solving Optimization Problems
Mohammad Dehghani 1, *, Zeinab Montazeri 1 , Gulnara Bektemyssova 2 , Om Parkash Malik 3 ,
Gaurav Dhiman 4,5,6,7 and Ayman E. M. Ahmed 8

1 Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Shiraz University of Technology,

Shiraz 7155713876, Iran; [email protected]
2 Department of Computer Engineering, International Information Technology University,
Almaty 050000, Kazakhstan; [email protected]
3 Department of Electrical and Software Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada;
[email protected]
4 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Lebanese American University,
Byblos 13-5053, Lebanon; [email protected]
5 University Centre for Research and Development, Department of Computer Science and Engineering,
Chandigarh University, Mohali 140413, India
6 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Graphic Era Deemed to be University,
Dehradun 248002, India
7 Division of Research and Development, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara 144411, India
8 Faculty of Computer Engineering, King Salman International University, El Tor 46511, Egypt;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +98-917-051-0608

Abstract: In this paper, a new bio-inspired metaheuristic algorithm named the Kookaburra Optimization
Algorithm (KOA) is introduced, which imitates the natural behavior of kookaburras in nature. The
fundamental inspiration of KOA is the strategy of kookaburras when hunting and killing prey. The KOA
theory is stated, and its mathematical modeling is presented in the following two phases: (i) exploration
based on the simulation of prey hunting and (ii) exploitation based on the simulation of kookaburras’
Citation: Dehghani, M.; Montazeri, behavior in ensuring that their prey is killed. The performance of KOA has been evaluated on 29 standard
Z.; Bektemyssova, G.; Malik, O.P.; benchmark functions from the CEC 2017 test suite for the different problem dimensions of 10, 30, 50, and
Dhiman, G.; Ahmed, A.E.M. 100. The optimization results show that the proposed KOA approach, by establishing a balance between
Kookaburra Optimization Algorithm: exploration and exploitation, has good efficiency in managing the effective search process and providing
A New Bio-Inspired Metaheuristic suitable solutions for optimization problems. The results obtained using KOA have been compared
Algorithm for Solving Optimization
with the performance of 12 well-known metaheuristic algorithms. The analysis of the simulation results
Problems. Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470.
shows that KOA, by providing better results in most of the benchmark functions, has provided superior
https://doi.org/10.3390/
performance in competition with the compared algorithms. In addition, the implementation of KOA
biomimetics8060470
on 22 constrained optimization problems from the CEC 2011 test suite, as well as 4 engineering design
Academic Editor: Heming Jia problems, shows that the proposed approach has acceptable and superior performance compared to
Received: 2 September 2023
competitor algorithms in handling real-world applications.
Revised: 16 September 2023
Accepted: 27 September 2023 Keywords: optimization; bio-inspired; metaheuristic; kookaburra; exploration; exploitation
Published: 1 October 2023

1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
There are many problems in science, engineering, mathematics, and real-world ap-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
plications that have more than one feasible solution. These multi-solution problems are
distributed under the terms and
known as optimization problems. According to this definition, the process of determining
conditions of the Creative Commons
the best feasible solution among all the available solutions for this type of problem is called
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// optimization [1]. Optimization problems are mathematically modeled using three main
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ parts: decision variables, constraints, and objective functions. The goal of optimization is
4.0/). to determine the optimal values for the decision variables in such a way that, respecting

Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics8060470 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/biomimetics

Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 2 of 54

the constraints of the problem, the objective function becomes maximum or minimum [2].
Problem solving techniques that deal with optimization tasks are classified into the follow-
ing two groups: deterministic and stochastic approaches [3]. Deterministic approaches,
which are placed into two classes, gradient-based and non-gradient-based, have good
performance in solving convex, linear, continuous, differentiable, and low-dimensional
optimization problems [4]. Despite these advantages, deterministic approaches fail to solve
complex, non-convex, nonlinear, discontinuous, non-differentiable, and high-dimensional
optimization problems by getting stuck in inappropriate local solutions [5]. These are the
characteristics and nature of many optimization problems in science, technology, industry,
engineering, and real-world applications. Disadvantages and inabilities of determinis-
tic approaches in handling such optimization problems have led researchers to develop
stochastic approaches [6].
Metaheuristic algorithms are one of the most widely used stochastic approaches that
are able to provide suitable solutions for optimization problems based on a random search
in the problem-solving space and the use of random operators and trial-and-error processes.
Moreover, there are many advantages, such as the following: independence from the type
of problem, convenient implementation, easy concepts, no need for gradient information,
efficiency in non-differentiable, discontinuous, complex, non-convex, nonlinear, and high-
dimensional problems, and efficiency in nonlinear and unknown search spaces, has led to
the popularity of metaheuristic algorithms among researchers. The optimization process
in metaheuristic algorithms starts with the random generation of a number of feasible
solutions. Then, during successive iterations of the algorithm and based on the update
steps, these initial solutions are improved. After the completion of the iterations of the
algorithm, the best solution obtained during the search process is presented as a solution
to the problem [7]. Metaheuristic algorithms do not provide any guarantee to achieve the
global optimal, and this is due to the random search nature of these approaches. However,
given that the solutions obtained from metaheuristic algorithms for optimization problems
are close to the global optimal, they are acceptable as quasi-optimal solutions. The desire of
researchers to achieve better quasi-optimal solutions for optimization problems has led to
the design of numerous metaheuristic algorithms [8]. These algorithms are employed to
solve optimization problems in various sciences such as the following: structure design [9],
simultaneous sound absorption and superior mechanical properties [10], energy [11–13],
protection [14], electrical engineering [15–19], and energy carriers [20,21].
The two main pillars of the success of metaheuristic algorithms in providing an
effective search process in the problem-solving space are exploration and exploitation.
Exploration is the ability of the algorithm in the global search of the problem-solving
space, with the aim of discovering the main optimal area and avoiding getting stuck in local
optima. Exploitation is the ability of the algorithm in the local search of the problem-solving
space, with the aim of obtaining possible better solutions near the promising areas and
the obtained solutions. In addition to having exploration and exploitation, what leads to
the successful performance of the metaheuristic algorithm in the optimization process is
its ability to establish a balance between exploration and exploitation during the search
process [22].
The main research question in the study of metaheuristic algorithms is that despite the
many metaheuristic algorithms that have been designed so far, is there still a need to design
new metaheuristic algorithms or not? In response to this challenge, the No Free Lunch
(NFL) [23] theorem explains that the successful performance of a metaheuristic algorithm in
solving a set of optimization problems is not a guarantee to provide the same performance
of that algorithm in solving other optimization problems. In fact, a metaheuristic algorithm
may provide an even global optimal in solving an optimization problem but fail in solving
another optimization problem. According to the NFL theorem, there is no assumption
about the success or failure of implementing a metaheuristic algorithm on an optimization
problem. According to the NFL theorem, there is no unique metaheuristic algorithm
that is the best optimizer for all optimization problems. By keeping the study field of
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 3 of 54

metaheuristic algorithms active, the NFL theorem encourages and motivates researchers
to be able to provide more effective solutions for optimization problems by introducing
newer metaheuristic algorithms.
The novelty and innovation of this article is in the design of a new metaheuristic
algorithm called the Kookaburra Optimization Algorithm (KOA), which is used in solving
optimization problems. The scientific contributions of this study are as follows:
• KOA is designed based on mimicking the natural behavior of kookaburras in the wild;
• The fundamental inspiration of KOA is derived from (i) the kookaburras’ strategy
during hunting and (ii) the behavior of kookaburras when they slam their prey into a
tree to ensure that the prey is killed;
• The implementation steps of KOA are described and mathematically modeled in
two phases of exploration and exploitation based on simulating the behavior of
kookaburras in nature;
• The effectiveness of KOA in solving optimization problems has been evaluated in the
CEC 2017 test suite;
• The performance of KOA in handling real-world applications has been tested on
22 constrained optimization problems from the CEC 2011 test suite as well as 4 engi-
neering design problems;
• The results of KOA have been compared with the performance of 12 well-known
metaheuristic algorithms.
The structure of the paper is as follows: the literature review is presented in Section 2.
Then the proposed Kookaburra Optimization Algorithm (KOA) is introduced and modeled
in Section 3. The simulation studies and results are presented in Section 4. The effectiveness
of KOA in solving real-world applications is investigated in Section 5. The conclusions and
suggestions for future research are provided in Section 6.

2. Literature Review
Metaheuristic algorithms have been developed with inspiration from various natural
phenomena, natural behaviors of living organisms in nature, laws of physics, biological
concepts, game rules, human behaviors, and other evolutionary phenomena. Based on the
main design idea, metaheuristic algorithms are placed in the following five groups: swarm-
based, evolutionary-based, physics-based, human-based, and game-based approaches.
Swarm-based metaheuristic algorithms are designed inspired by the swarming phe-
nomena among animals, insects, reptiles, aquatic, birds, and other living organisms. Ant
Colony Optimization (ACO) [24], Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) [25], Particle Swarm Op-
timization (PSO) [26], and Firefly Algorithm (FA) [27] are among the most prominent
swarm-based metaheuristic algorithms that have been employed in many optimization
applications. ACO is designed inspired by the ant colony’s ability to identify the shortest
communication path between the nest and the food source. ABC is designed inspired by
the activities and interactions of honeybees in the colony to access food resources. PSO
is developed inspired by the swarming movement of flocks of fish and birds searching
for food sources. FA is introduced inspired by the exchange and communication of in-
formation between fireflies using optical communication. Among the natural swarming
behaviors in wildlife, foraging, hunting, chasing, and migration are more prominent and
have been sources of inspiration in the design of several metaheuristic algorithms such
as: Green Anaconda Optimization (GAO) [28], Coati Optimization Algorithm (COA) [29],
Pelican Optimization Algorithm (POA) [30], African Vultures Optimization Algorithm
(AVOA) [31], White Shark Optimizer (WSO) [32], Orca Predation Algorithm (OPA) [33],
Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO) [34], Serval Optimization Algorithm (SOA) [35], Marine
Predator Algorithm (MPA) [36], Subtraction-Average-Based Optimizer (SABO) [37], Whale
Optimization Algorithm (WOA) [38], Golden Jackal Optimization (GJO) [39], Tunicate
Swarm Algorithm (TSA) [40], Honey Badger Algorithm (HBA) [41], and Reptile Search
Algorithm (RSA) [42].
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 4 of 54

Evolutionary-based metaheuristic algorithms are designed with inspiration from ge-

netics and biology sciences, the concepts of natural selection and evolutionary operators.
Genetic algorithm (GA) [43] and differential evolution (DE) [44] are the most familiar names
of evolutionary-based metaheuristic algorithms that have been widely used in handling
optimization tasks. GA and DE are developed with inspiration from the process of repro-
duction, Darwin’s theory of evolution, survival of the fittest, and random genetic operators
such as mutation, crossover, and selection. Artificial immune systems (AISs) are designed in-
spired by the body’s defense and immunity mechanisms against diseases and microbes [45].
Some other evolutionary-based metaheuristic algorithms are as follows: evolution strategy
(ES) [46], cultural algorithm (CA) [47], and genetic programming (GP) [48].
Physics-based metaheuristic algorithms are designed with inspiration from forces,
laws, concepts, phenomena, and transformations in physics. Simulated annealing (SA) [49]
is one of the most widely used physics-based metaheuristic algorithms, which is designed
with the inspiration of the metal annealing process where, in order to achieve an ideal
crystal, the metal is first melted under heat and then slowly cooled. Physical forces and
Newton’s laws of motion are employed in designing algorithms such as the following: Mo-
mentum Search Algorithm (MSA) [50] based on momentum force, Spring Search Algorithm
(SSA) [51] based on spring force, and Gravitational Search Algorithm (GSA) [52] based on
gravitational force. Various physical transformations during the natural water cycle have
been the main inspiration in the design of Water Cycle Algorithm (WCA) [53]. The concepts
of cosmology have been fundamental in the development of algorithms such as Black Hole
Algorithm (BHA) [54] and Multi-Verse Optimizer (MVO) [55]. Some other physics-based
metaheuristic algorithms are as follows: Archimedes Optimization Algorithm (AOA) [56],
Equilibrium Optimizer (EO) [57], Lichtenberg Algorithm (LA) [58], Thermal Exchange
Optimization (TEO) [59], Electro-Magnetism Optimization (EMO) [60], Nuclear Reaction
Optimization (NRO) [61], and Henry Gas Optimization (HGO) [62].
Human-based metaheuristic algorithms are designed with inspiration from different
human strategies, such as interactions, communication, thoughts, decisions, and other hu-
man behaviors in personal and social life. Teaching–Learning Based Optimization (TLBO)
is one of the most famous human-based metaheuristic algorithms, which is designed with
the inspiration of educational relationships between students and teachers in the class-
room [63]. The Mother Optimization Algorithm (MOA) is introduced based on Eshrat’s care
of her children in the following three phases: education, advice, and upbringing [64]. The
Teamwork Optimization Algorithm (TOA) is introduced with the inspiration of cooperation
and interactions between teammates when providing a team work in order to achieve the
set goals [65]. The Sewing Training-Based Optimization (STBO) is designed inspired by the
process of learning sewing skills of students in sewing schools [66]. The Driving Training-
Based Optimization (DTBO) is developed inspired by driving education and interactions
between applicants and instructors in driving schools [5]. Some other human-based meta-
heuristic algorithms are as follows: Doctor and Patient Optimization (DPO) [67], Following
Optimization Algorithm (FOA) [68], Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves (AFT) [69], Drawer
Algorithm (DA) [70], Election-Based Optimization Algorithm (EBOA) [71], Chef-Based
Optimization Algorithm (CHBO) [72], Coronavirus Herd Immunity Optimizer (CHIO) [73],
War Strategy Optimization (WSO) [74], and Gaining Sharing Knowledge-Based Algorithm
(GSK) [75].
Game-based metaheuristic algorithms are designed inspired by the governing rules,
the behavior of players, coaches, referees, and other influential persons in various individ-
ual and team games. The Football Game-Based Optimization (FGBO) [76] and Volleyball
Premier League (VPL) [77] are among the game-based metaheuristic algorithms developed
based on the simulation of league matches between clubs. The effort of players to find
a hidden object in the playground has been the main inspiration in the design of Puzzle
Optimization Algorithm (POA) [78]. The effort of the players in the archery competition
and shooting towards the scoreboard has been the main idea in the design of the Archery
Algorithm (AA) [6]. Some other game-based metaheuristic algorithms are as follows: Darts
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 5 of 54

Game Optimizer (DGO) [79], Golf Optimization Algorithm (GOA) [80], Dice Game Opti-
mizer (DGO) [81], Orientation Search Algorithm (OSA) [82], Hide Object Game Optimizer
(HOGO) [83], and Ring Toss Game-Based Optimization (RTGBO) [84].
Topology optimization-based methods are mathematical methods for optimizing
the material distribution in a certain region based on the given performance metrics,
constraints, and load conditions. Topology optimization has significant potential for
practical engineering applications due to its greater design freedom compared to structural
shape optimization and structural size optimization [85]. Topology optimization-based
methods are employed in different applications such as the design of compliant robotic
legs [86] and lightweight design [87].
Based on the best knowledge obtained from the literature review, no metaheuristic
algorithm based on simulating the natural behavior of kookaburras has been designed so
far. This is while the strategy of kookaburras when hunting and killing prey is an intelligent
process that can be the basis for designing a new metaheuristic algorithm. With the aim of
addressing this research gap in optimization studies, in this paper, a new meta-heuristic
algorithm based on modeling the natural behavior of kookaburras in the wild is designed,
which is discussed in the next section.

3. Kookaburra Optimization Algorithm

In this section, the inspiration source and theory of the proposed Kookaburra Opti-
mization Algorithm (KOA) approach are stated, then its implementation steps are mathe-
matically modeled in order to be used in solving optimization problems.

3.1. Inspiration of KOA

The Kookaburra of the Dacelo genus is a bird from the group of terrestrial tree king-
fishers that lives on land, is carnivorous, and belongs to the Coraciiformes and Alcedininae
families. This bird lives in the native habitats of New Guinea and Australia. They are found
in habitats ranging from arid savannah to humid forest, as well as near running water or
in suburban areas with tall trees. The sound of this bird is similar to human laughter, and
with this sound, the bird basically warns its enemies not to approach its territory [88].
Kookaburras can be found in different colors such as blue, brown, and white, and
behind the eyes of this bird there is a dark brown spot, which gives the bird an angry
awe along with the special shape of the feathers on its head. Kookaburra is between 28
and 47 cm long, and its weight is about 300 g [89]. A picture of a kookaburra is shown in
Figure 1.
Kookaburras are carnivorous birds that feed on mice, insects, snakes, frogs, small
reptiles, and small birds. The beak of the kookaburra is suitable for diving and hunting.
The bird dives towards the prey with an open beak, and after hunting, it returns to the
branch of the tree from which it flew from and knocks the prey against the tree several
times to make sure it is dead. Then he holds the prey tightly between his claws, crushes it,
and eats it [90].
Among the natural behaviors of the kookaburra in the wild, the strategy of this animal
in hunting and knocking the prey against the tree in order to ensure that the prey is killed
is much more significant. These natural kookaburra behaviors are the intelligent processes
employed in the design of proposed KOA approach.
Biomimetics 2023,
Biomimetics 8, 8,
2023, 470x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 6ofof46
54

Figure1.1.Kookaburra
Figure Kookaburrataken
takenfrom:
from: free
free media
media Wikimedia
Wikimedia Commons.
Commons.

3.2. Algorithm
KookaburrasInitialization
are carnivorous birds that feed on mice, insects, snakes, frogs, small
reptiles, and smallKOA
The proposed birds.approach
The beakisofa the kookaburra is suitable
population-based optimizerforthat
diving andtohunting.
is able provide
The birdsolutions
suitable dives towards the prey with
for optimization an openinbeak,
problems and after hunting,
an iterative-based it returns
process basedtoonthea
branch search
random of the tree
in thefrom which it flewspace.
problem-solving from and
The knocks the prey against
KOA population consiststhe tree several
of kookaburras
times
that aretoplaced
make in sure
theitproblem-solving
is dead. Then he space
holds so
thethat
preyeach
tightly between determines
kookaburra his claws, crushes
values
it, and eats it [90].
for the decision variables based on its position in the problem-solving space; therefore,
Among theisnatural
each kookaburra behaviors
a candidate solutionof to
thethe
kookaburra
problem that in the
can wild, the strategy
be modeled using aofvector.
this
animal in hunting and knocking the prey against the tree in order to
Kookaburras together form the KOA population matrix, which can be modeled using a ensure that the prey
is killed
matrix is muchto
according more significant.
Equation These
(1). The natural
position kookaburra
of the kookaburras behaviors are the intelligent
at the beginning of KOA
processes employed
implementation in the design
is randomly of proposed
initialized KOA approach.
using Equation (2).

3.2. Algorithm Initialization

X1 x1,1 · · · x1,d · · · x1,m
   
 .. approach  a ..population-based
.. .. .. that is able to provide
.

The proposed KOA is optimizer

..


 .   . . . . 
suitable solutions for
 optimization
X =  Xi 



 problems in an
=  xi,1 · · · xi,d · · · xi,m 
 iterative-based  process based on a
(1)
random search in  the. 
problem-solving
 . space. . The . KOA . population  consists of
.

 ..   .. .. .. .. 

..

kookaburras that are placed in the problem-solving space so that each kookaburra
determines values for the X N decision
N ×m
x
variables
N,1 · · ·
based x on
N,d ·
its · · x
positionN,m in Nthe
×m problem-solving
space; therefore, each kookaburra is a candidate solution to the problem that can be
modeled using a vector. Kookaburras xi,d = lb together form the KOA population matrix, which
d + r ·( ubd − lbd ) (2)
can be modeled using a matrix according to Equation (1). The position of the kookaburras
Here,
at the X is theofKOA
beginning KOApopulation
implementation matrix, Xi is the ith
is randomly kookaburra
initialized using(candidate
Equationsolution),
(2).
xi,d is its dth dimension in search space (decision variable), N is the number of kookaburras,
𝑋
m is the number of decision variables, r 𝑥is ,a random
⋯ 𝑥 , number ⋯ 𝑥in, interval [0, 1], lbd and ubd
⎡ ⋮ ⎤ ⎡ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⋮ ⎤ respectively.
⋰ variable,
are the lower bound and upper ⎢ ⎥bound of ⎢ 𝑥 the dth.⋯
decision
𝑥 ⋯ 𝑥 ⎥
Considering that the ⎢𝑋 ⎥
𝑋 =position = each
of ⎢ , kookaburra , in the, problem-solving
⎥ space(1)is
⋮ ⎥
a candidate solution for the⎢ problem ⎢ ⋮
corresponding⋰ ⋮ to⋱each⋮ kookaburra,⎥ the objective
⎣𝑋 ⎦ × ⎣𝑥 , ⋯ 𝑥 , ⋯ 𝑥 , ⎦ ×

𝑥 , = 𝑙𝑏 + 𝑟 ∙ (𝑢𝑏 − 𝑙𝑏 ) (2)
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 7 of 54

function of the problem can be evaluated. The set of evaluated values for the objective
function of the problem can be represented using a vector according to Equation (3).

F1 F ( X1 )
  
 ..   .. 
 .   . 
   
F= F
 i
 =  F ( Xi ) 
  (3)
 .   . 
 ..   .. 
FN N ×1 F ( X N ) N ×1

Here, F is the vector of evaluated objective function and Fi is the evaluated objective
function based on the ith kookaburra.
The evaluated values for the objective function are a suitable criterion for measuring
the quality of candidate solutions and population members. The best evaluated value for
the objective function corresponds to the best member and the worst evaluated value for
the objective function corresponds to the worst member. Considering that in each iteration,
the position of the kookaburras in the problem-solving space is updated, the objective
function of the problem is reevaluated and based on the comparison of the new values, the
best member of the population is also updated.

3.3. Mathematical Modelling of KOA

The proposed KOA approach updates the position of kookaburras in the following
two phases: exploration and exploitation, in an iterative-based process in order to improve
candidate solutions based on the simulation of natural kookaburra behaviors in the wild.
Next, the process of updating the KOA population in the search space is presented.

3.3.1. Phase 1: Hunting Strategy (Exploration)

The kookaburra is a carnivorous bird that feeds on other small birds, reptiles, insects,
mice, frogs, etc. Although this bird has weak legs, they have a very strong neck that helps
them in hunting. The strategy of kookaburras in selecting prey and attacking it leads to
large displacement in their position. This process represents the global search with the
concept of exploration, which refers to the detailed scanning of the problem-solving space
with the aim of avoiding getting stuck in the local optimal in order to discover the main
optimal area.
In order to simulate the hunting strategy of kookaburras, the position of other kook-
aburras, which have a better objective function value, is considered as the prey location
in KOA design for each kookaburra. Therefore, based on the comparison of the objective
function values, the available prey set for each kookaburra is determined using Equation (4).

CPi = { Xk : Fk < Fi and k 6= i }, where i = 1, 2, . . . , N and k ∈ {1, 2, . . . , N } (4)

Here, CPi is the set of candidate prey for ith kookaburra, Xk is the kookaburra with a
better objective function value than the ith kookaburra, and Fk is the objective function value.
In the KOA design, it is assumed that each kookaburra randomly selects a prey and
attacks it. Based on the simulation of the movement of the kookaburra towards the prey in
the hunting strategy, a new position for the kookaburra is calculated using Equation (5). In
this case, if the value of the objective function is improved in the new position, this new
position will replace the previous position of the corresponding kookaburra according to
Equation (6).
P1
xi,d = xi,d + r ·(SCPi,d − I · xi,d ), i = 1, 2, . . . , N, and d = 1, 2, . . . , m (5)

(
XiP1 , FiP1 < Fi
Xi = (6)
Xi , else
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 8 of 54

Here, XiP1 is the new suggested position of the ith kookaburra based on first phase
P1 is its dth dimension, F P1 is its objective function value, r is a random number
of KOA, xi,d i
with a normal distribution in the range of [0, 1], SCPi,d is the dth dimension of selected prey
for ith kookaburra, I is a random number from set {1, 2}, N is the number of kookaburra,
and m is the number of decision variables.

3.3.2. Phase 2: Ensuring That the Prey Is Killed (Exploitation)

The second characteristic behavior of kookaburras is that after attacking the prey, the
kookaburra carries the prey with itself and makes sure that the prey is killed by repeatedly
hitting it against the tree. The kookaburra then holds the prey tightly between its claws
and crushes and eats it. This behavior of kookaburras, which happens near the hunting
ground, leads to small changes in their position. This process, which represents the local
search with the concept of exploitation, refers to the ability of the algorithm to achieve
better solutions near the obtained solutions and promising areas.
In the KOA design, in order to simulate this behavior of kookaburras based on their
movement near the hunting place, a random position is calculated using Equation (7). In
fact, it is assumed that this displacement occurs randomly in a neighborhood to the center of
(ubd − lbd )
each kookaburra with a radius equal to t . The radius of this neighborhood is first
set to the maximum value; then, during successive iterations, this radius becomes smaller so
that the local search with the aim of converging towards better solutions can be performed
more accurately. The new position calculated for each kookaburra replaces its previous
position if it improves the value of the objective function according to Equation (8).

P2 (ubd − lbd )
xi,d = xi,d + (1 − 2r )· , i = 1, 2, . . . , N, d = 1, 2, . . . , m, and t = 1, 2, . . . , T (7)
t
(
XiP2 , FiP2 < Fi
Xi = (8)
Xi , else

Here, XiP2 is the new suggested position of the ith kookaburra based on the second phase
P2 is its dth dimension, F P2 is its objective function value, t is the iteration counter
of KOA, xi,d i
of the algorithm, and T is the maximum number of algorithm iterations.

3.4. Repetition Process, Pseudocode, and Flowchart of KOA

The first iteration of KOA is completed after updating the location of all kookaburras
based on the first and second phases. At the end of each iteration, the best solution obtained
until that iteration is updated and saved. Then, based on the updated positions and the
new evaluated values for the objective function, the algorithm enters the next iteration.
The process of updating the position of kookaburras continues until the last iteration of
the algorithm based on Equations (4)–(8). In the end, the best candidate solution obtained
during the iterations of the algorithm is presented as the proposed solution by KOA for the
problem. The steps of KOA implementation are presented as a flowchart in Figure 2, and
its pseudo code is presented in Algorithm 1.

3.5. Computational Complexity of KOA

In this subsection, the analysis of the computational complexity of KOA is discussed.
The KOA initialization steps have a complexity equal to O(Nm), where N is the number of
kookaburras and m is the number of decision variables of the problem. In each iteration
of KOA, the position of each kookaburra in the problem-solving space is updated in the
two phases of exploration and exploitation. Therefore, the process of updating kookaburras
has a complexity equal to O(2NmT), where T is the maximum number of iterations of the
algorithm. Therefore, the total computational complexity of the proposed KOA approach
is equal to O(Nm(1 + 2T)).
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 9 of 54
Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 46

Figure2.2.Flowchart
Figure Flowchartof
ofKOA.
KOA.

Algorithm 1. Pseudocode of KOA.

Start KOA.
1. Input problem information: variables, objective function, and constraints.
2. Set KOA population size (N) and iterations (T).
Generate the initial population matrix at random using Equation (2). 𝑥 , ← 𝑙𝑏 +
3.
𝑟 ∙ (𝑢𝑏 − 𝑙𝑏 )
4. Evaluate the objective function.
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 10 of 54

Algorithm 1 Pseudocode of KOA

Start KOA.
1. Input problem information: variables, objective function, and constraints.
2. Set KOA population size (N) and iterations (T).
Generate the initial population matrix at random using Equation (2).
3.
xi,d ← lbd + r ·(ubd − lbd )
4. Evaluate the objective function.
5. For t = 1 to T
6. For i = 1 to N
7. Phase 1: hunting strategy (exploration) 
8. Determine the candidate preys set using Equation (4). CPi ← Xki : Fki < Fi and k i 6= i
9. Choose the prey for the ith KOA member at random.
Calculate new position of ith KOA member using Equation (5).
10. P1 ← x + r · SCP − I · x


xi,d i,d i,d i,d (
P1 P1
11. Update ith KOA member using Equation (6). X = Xi , Fi < Fi
i
Xi , else
12. Phase 2: Ensuring that the prey is killed (exploitation)
Calculate new position of ith KOA member using Equation (7).
13. P2 ← x + (1 − 2r )· (ubd − lbd )
xi,d i,d t (
P2 P2
14. Update ith KOA member using Equation (8). X = Xi , Fi < Fi
i
Xi , else
15. end
16. Save the best candidate solution so far.
17. end
18. Output the best quasi-optimal solution obtained with the KOA.
End KOA.

4. Simulation Studies and Results

In this section, simulation studies are presented on the performance of KOA in dealing
with optimization scenarios. The performance of KOA has been evaluated on 29 standard
benchmark functions from the Competitions on Evolutionary Computation (CEC) 2017 test
suite for problem dimensions equal to 10, 30, 50, and 100. In order to measure the perfor-
mance quality of KOA, the obtained results have been compared with the performance
of the following 12 well-known metaheuristic algorithms: GA [43], PSO [26], GSA [52],
TLBO [63], MVO [55], GWO [34], WOA [38], MPA [36], TSA [40], RSA [42], AVOA [31], and
WSO [32]. The control parameters of metaheuristic algorithms are specified in Table 1. The
optimization results are reported using the following six statistical indicators: mean, best,
worst, standard deviation (std), median, and rank. The ranking criterion of metaheuristic
algorithms for each of the benchmark functions is the value of the mean index.

Table 1. Control parameters values.

Algorithm Parameter Value

Type Real coded
Selection Roulette wheel (Proportionate)
GA
Whole arithmetic (Probability = 0.8,
Crossover
α ∈ [−0.5, 1.5])
Mutation Gaussian (Probability = 0.05)
Topology Fully connected
Cognitive and social constant (C1 , C2 )= (2, 2)
PSO
Inertia weight Linear reduction from 0.9 to 0.1
Velocity limit 10% of dimension range
GSA Alpha, G0 , Rnorm , Rpower 20, 100, 2, 1
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 11 of 54

Table 1. Cont.

Algorithm Parameter Value

TF : teaching factor TF = round [(1 + rand)]
TLBO
Random number rand is a random number between [0–1].
GWO Convergence parameter (a) a: Linear reduction from 2 to 0.
Wormhole existence probability (WEP) Min(WEP) = 0.2 and Max(WEP) = 1.
MVO
Exploitation accuracy over the iterations (p) p = 6.
Convergence parameter (a) a: Linear reduction from 2 to 0.
WOA r is a random vector in [0–1].
l is a random number in [−1, 1].
Pmin and Pmax 1, 4
TSA
c1, c2, c3 Random numbers lie in the range of [0–1].
Constant number p = 0.5
Random vector R is a vector of uniform random numbers in [0, 1].
MPA
Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) FADs = 0.2
Binary vector U = 0 or 1
Sensitive parameter β = 0.01
RSA Sensitive parameter α = 0.1
Evolutionary Sense (ES) ES: randomly decreasing values between 2 and −2
L1 , L2 0.8, 0.2
AVOA w 2.5
P1 , P2 , P3 0.6, 0.4, 0.6
Fmin and Fmax 0.07, 0.75
WSO
τ, a0 , a1 , a2 4.125, 6.25, 100, 0.0005

4.1. Evaluation CEC 2017 Test Suite

In this subsection, the evaluation of the proposed KOA approach in dealing with
the Competitions on Evolutionary Computation (CEC) 2017 test suite is discussed. This
test suite has 30 standard benchmark functions consisting of the following: 3 unimodal
functions of C17-F1 to C17-F3, 7 multimodal functions of C17-F4 to C17-F10, 10 hybrid
functions of C17-F11 to C17-F20, and 10 composition functions of C17-F21 to C17-F30.
Among these, the C17-F2 function is not considered in the simulation studies due to
the instability of the behavior. Information related to CEC 2017 test suite is provided in
Appendix A and Table A1. The full description and details of the CEC 2017 test suite
are provided in [91]. The implementation results of KOA and competitor algorithms on
the CEC 2017 test suite for different dimensions of the problem equal to 10, 30, 50, and
100 are reported in Tables 2–5. The boxplot diagrams resulting from the application of
metaheuristic algorithms on the studied benchmark functions are drawn in Figures 3–6.
What is evident from the simulation results, in handling the CEC 2017 test suite for the
problem dimension equal to 10, KOA is the first best optimizer for functions C17-F1, C17-F3
to C17-F24, and C17-F27 to C17-F30. For problem dimension equal to 30, KOA is the
first best optimizer for functions C17-F1, C17-F3 to C17-F5, C17-F7, C17-F12 to C17-F14,
C17-F16 to C17-F18, C17-F21 to C17-F27, and C17-F29. For problem dimension equal to 50,
KOA is the first best optimizer for functions C17-F1, C17-F3 to C17-F25, and C17-F27 to
C17-F30. For problem dimension equal to 100, KOA is the first best optimizer for functions
C17-F1, and C17-F3 to C17-F30.
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 12 of 54

Table 2. Optimization results of CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 10).

KOA WSO AVOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 100 5.42 × 109 3646.942 9.67 × 109 33,430,909 1.65 × 109 6,111,054 7131.038 83,576,400 1.39 × 108 712.6012 2984.583 11,229,309
best 100 4.46 × 109 114.7977 8.36 × 109 10,619.9 3.53 × 108 4,449,740 4537.763 26,341.55 62,120,924 100.0182 332.7586 5,814,967
worst 100 7.02 × 109 11,292.36 1.15 × 1010 1.21 × 108 3.59 × 109 8,045,954 10,505.13 3.04 × 108 3.36 × 108 1701.327 8827.164 16,120,640
C17-F1 std 0 1.2 × 109 5643.075 1.54 × 109 63,706,411 1.56 × 109 1,644,930 3021.388 1.59 × 108 1.43 × 108 748.8068 4251.125 4,655,595
median 100 5.09 × 109 1590.305 9.41 × 109 6,127,683 1.32 × 109 5,974,262 6740.631 15,317,772 79,652,751 524.5298 1389.204 11,490,815
rank 1 12 4 13 8 11 6 5 9 10 2 3 7
mean 300 8545.047 301.7937 9154.734 1349.094 10627.2 1654.399 300.0517 2922.734 703.7751 9732.523 300 14,009.65
best 300 4204.342 300 4943.483 765.3836 4056.697 602.4388 300.012 1463.459 462.1985 6130.294 300 4135.906
C17-F3 worst 300 11,420.58 303.8366 12,243.1 2417.003 15,018.3 3170.638 300.1178 5592.507 861.5824 13,222.67 300 22,134.76
std 0 3413.27 2.249265 3607.385 823.5855 5030.939 1307.715 0.050225 2058.964 189. 2264 3161.605 5.02 × 10−14 10,161.97
median 300 9277.635 301.6691 9716.179 1106.994 11716.9 1422.259 300.0385 2317.485 745.6598 9788.562 300 14,883.97
rank 1 9 4 10 6 12 7 3 8 5 11 2 13
mean 400 912.8675 404.5044 1301.509 406.3768 567.2482 423.8418 403.1612 411.1278 408.6941 404.3164 419.2569 413.954
best 400 690.8376 401.1767 821.7783 402.3193 473.7955 406.1071 401.5111 405.7731 407.95 403.3764 400.1002 411.0716
worst 400 1112.692 406.1874 1771.409 410.788 676.3611 469.7346 404.6409 426.8867 409.1638 405.7603 466.7173 417.4808
C17-F4
std 0 209.9105 2.551559 438.1046 4.514927 107.3145 33.16825 1.758815 11.35517 0.562504 1.181624 34.54932 3.031633
median 400 923.97 405.3267 1306.424 406.2 559.4181 409.7628 403.2464 405.9257 408.8312 404.0645 405.1051 413.6319
rank 1 12 4 13 5 11 10 2 7 6 3 9 8
mean 501.2464 562.3634 542.2295 569.7676 512.4027 561.6767 539.2849 522.754 512.538 532.6659 551.6227 526.777 526.884
best 500.9951 548.7241 525.743 555.7886 508.0904 541.4349 522.5012 509.838 508.2057 527.4 546.955 510.7172 522.3658
C17-F5 worst 501.9917 571.2765 560.2126 584.1212 517.2861 592.3801 573.6615 536.4622 519.5033 536.0354 562.8635 549.6066 532.3901
std 0.537048 11.20594 19.53923 17.01542 5.237015 24.42791 25.90124 12.01489 5.259868 4.100836 8.206794 19.38461 4.88069
median 500.9993 564.7264 541.4811 569.5803 512.1171 556.4458 530.4886 522.3578 511.2215 533.6141 548.3362 523.3922 526.3901
rank 1 12 9 13 2 11 8 4 3 7 10 5 6
mean 600 631.2585 616.6484 639.1286 601.1476 623.8678 622.2694 602.0665 601.0833 606.5967 616.5387 607.1419 609.8626
best 600 627.7654 615.6829 636.0406 600.6833 614.4904 607.2346 600.4538 600.573 604.5743 602.8033 601.3022 606.6375
worst 600 635.2624 619.101 643.2172 602.3052 638.8541 643.4482 604.1461 601.6524 609.7501 634.7421 618.513 613.9428
C17-F6
std 0 3.529052 1.772351 3.485675 0.836288 11.35957 16.48107 1.793347 0.482948 2.550371 15.96967 8.437511 3.499868
median 600 631.003 615.9048 638.6283 600.8009 621.0634 619.1973 601.8331 601.054 606.0311 614.3047 604.3763 609.435
rank 1 12 9 13 3 11 10 4 2 5 8 6 7
mean 711.1267 802.7762 763.4548 800.7578 724.117 823.9431 760.1147 730.1162 725.4394 750.4728 716.8883 731.9086 735.8794
best 710.6726 781.8022 742.6204 788.0238 720.0761 785.3852 749.5597 716.9869 717.224 746.1048 714.7148 725.0479 725.955
C17-F7 worst 711.7995 821.2507 790.1525 812.9158 728.3524 863.7992 788.4426 748.6276 742.2706 758.2657 720.4627 743.0075 740.2679
std 0.553542 18.15716 23.61747 12.62505 3.762887 36.81428 20.47025 14.39328 12.43131 5.870293 2.693729 8.863192 7.262378
median 711.0174 804.0259 760.5232 801.0458 724.0197 823.294 751.2283 727.4252 721.1315 748.7603 716.1878 729.7895 738.6474
rank 1 12 10 11 3 13 9 5 4 8 2 6 7
mean 801.4928 847.3854 829.9963 851.707 812.2457 846.5042 835.0363 811.4403 815.3054 836.332 819.1693 821.9628 816.2124
best 800.995 838.3184 819.5556 840.9358 808.5515 830.9475 817.9146 807.1841 810.1642 829.6671 811.6011 815.1364 812.3596
worst 801.9912 856.3685 845.1869 856.7313 814.3296 865.0493 846.7926 816.0273 820.0848 844.0017 826.6263 828.1893 823.6925
C17-F8
std 0.621323 8.618492 11.69136 7.878719 2.87132 16.40915 13.40674 3.926693 4.487302 7.92135 6.910815 6.993148 5.494601
median 801.4926 847.4274 827.6213 854.5804 813.0508 845.0101 837.7191 811.2749 815.4864 835.8295 819.2249 822.2628 814.3987
rank 1 12 8 13 3 11 9 2 4 10 6 7 5
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 13 of 54

Table 2. Cont.

KOA WSO AVOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 900 1403.175 1177.093 1445.594 904.9995 1362.32 1357.11 900.7708 911.4786 911.3753 900 904.0802 904.9163
best 900 1269.436 951.6727 1353.459 900.315 1157.773 1067.465 900.001 900.5514 906.9562 900 900.865 902.6913
worst 900 1539.412 1632.062 1577.82 912.8331 1639.549 1627.449 902.9957 931.8665 919.2412 900 911.849 908.7317
C17-F9
std 0 133.8949 340.7487 103.2504 6.089832 225.3145 254.7876 1.603621 15.87842 5.835298 0 5.668996 2.952723
median 900 1401.927 1062.319 1425.548 903.4249 1325.979 1366.763 900.0433 906.7482 909.6519 900 901.8034 904.1211
rank 1 11 8 12 5 10 9 2 7 6 1 3 4
mean 1006.179 2242.673 1740.928 2503.746 1492.149 1983.773 1976.532 1743.756 1690.998 2116.596 2217.678 1901.082 1681.718
best 1000.284 2011.33 1460.938 2341.214 1373.017 1721.259 1428.434 1434.112 1513.627 1744.542 1951.564 1534.181 1395.362
worst 1012.668 2443.533 2347.261 2846.267 1563.4 2224.291 2475.855 2221.473 1944.864 2390.909 2318.319 2287.687 2058.089
C17-F10
std 7.194373 212.8061 450.1048 254.2606 96.90673 286.6101 547.4841 412.238 198.1502 296.9816 192.1263 334.4831 307.243
median 1005.882 2257.915 1577.756 2413.751 1516.089 1994.772 2000.92 1659.719 1652.75 2165.467 2300.415 1891.231 1636.71
rank 1 12 5 13 2 9 8 6 4 10 11 7 3
mean 1100 3931.298 1146.151 3844.336 1125.734 5248.161 1148.486 1126.173 1152.592 1148.443 1137.292 1141.417 2320.565
best 1100 2748.781 1116.222 1441.219 1112.56 5107.121 1112.331 1105.277 1120.573 1135.997 1118.692 1130.687 1114.315
worst 1100 5068.238 1196.85 6217.9 1155.93 5325.546 1169.558 1146.541 1222.149 1168.801 1165.288 1161.87 5742.625
C17-F11
std 0 1127.521 38.35607 2320.262 22.13462 104.9245 28.56128 22.28304 51.17725 15.30439 21.49395 15.17738 2466.306
median 1100 3954.085 1135.767 3859.113 1117.223 5279.989 1156.028 1126.437 1133.822 1144.486 1132.595 1136.556 1212.661
rank 1 12 6 11 2 13 8 3 9 7 4 5 10
mean 1352.959 3.37 × 108 1,050,072 6.73 × 108 541,542 991,960.6 2,245,918 981,879.2 1,350,349 4,820,499 973,553.4 7780.181 577,271.4
best 1318.646 75,442,697 339,707.7 1.49 × 108 19,010.6 514,431.2 163,914.5 8485.281 43,408.79 1,290,069 452,782.8 2463.035 167,249.5
worst 1438.176 5.89 × 108 1,904,244 1.18 × 109 847,465.2 1,217,819 3,725,865 3,084,075 2,113,661 8,533,694 1,646,391 13,344.2 1,018,988
C17-F12 std 61.92816 2.81 × 108 790,915.3 5.62 × 108 394,461.6 358,486.6 1,789,591 1,535,516 986,202.2 4,146,912 54,6081.3 5357.753 377,994.9
median 1327.506 3.42 × 108 978,168.8 6.83 × 108 649,846.1 1,117,796 2,546,947 417,478.1 1,622,163 4,729,116 897,520 7656.745 561,424
rank 1 12 8 13 3 7 10 6 9 11 5 2 4
mean 1305.324 16,403,745 17,548.34 32,796,754 5244.269 12,211.23 7290.03 6478.772 9884.935 16,016.06 9667.689 6376.406 52,004.5
best 1303.114 1,369,343 2657.747 2,722,927 3609.484 7298.455 3190.013 1382.32 6267.734 15,126.74 4875.201 2329.488 8210.392
worst 1308.508 54,446,115 30,025.46 1.09 × 108 6400.179 19,311.59 14,516.01 11,869.56 13,785.16 18,188.27 13,592.34 16,005.28 171,820.9
C17-F13
std 2.456412 27,470,086 15,291.58 54,938,775 1438.543 5603.79 5580.27 5871.155 3329.694 1580.064 3982.217 7014.873 86382.3
median 1304.837 4,899,761 18,755.07 9,792,476 5483.707 11,117.44 5727.048 6331.604 9743.423 15,374.63 10,101.61 3585.426 13,993.35
rank 1 12 10 13 2 8 5 4 7 9 6 3 11
mean 1400.746 3965.806 1993.916 5169.404 1915.876 3297.27 1513.73 1564.223 2303.898 1582.307 5378.146 2923.968 12,441.63
best 1400 3075.259 1666.562 4532.996 1433.46 1484.029 1478.206 1422.121 1459.571 1510.971 4457.979 1431.065 3622.123
worst 1400.995 5446.187 2763.948 6650.15 2835.899 5395.317 1551.67 1966.952 4803.25 1611.243 7276.959 6599.163 24,730.34
C17-F14
std 0.537676 1189.978 558.9709 1074.876 710.916 2248.705 40.57658 290.2479 1800.898 51.64711 1427.55 2669.493 9664.281
median 1400.995 3670.889 1772.578 4747.234 1697.073 3154.867 1512.521 1433.91 1476.386 1603.507 4888.823 1832.823 10,707.02
rank 1 10 6 11 5 9 2 3 7 4 12 8 13
mean 1500.331 9923.716 5127.088 13317.23 3864.416 6754.881 6005.951 1539.98 5620.1 1699.806 22873 8659.656 4412.735
best 1500.001 2822.72 2046.732 2678.572 3145.722 2282.713 1991.354 1524.768 3476.988 1580.333 10,788.43 2809.879 1872.988
worst 1500.5 17,572.85 12,126.03 29,059.94 4739.333 12,048.5 12,909.3 1551.486 6656.821 1785.449 34,294.88 14,195.79 7720.872
C17-F15
std 0.254447 6588.979 5082.111 12,449.64 714.5172 4535.851 5143.584 12.61657 1579.156 108.7942 12137.14 5143.125 3142.31
median 1500.413 9649.649 3167.794 10,765.2 3786.305 6344.154 4561.573 1541.833 6173.294 1716.721 23204.34 8816.476 4028.54
rank 1 11 6 12 4 9 8 2 7 3 13 10 5
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 14 of 54

Table 2. Cont.

KOA WSO AVOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 1600.76 1998.51 1800.135 1997.635 1680.458 2027.117 1934.677 1806.505 1722.723 1673.458 2051.818 1909.049 1793.242
best 1600.356 1927.649 1640.379 1809.456 1639.913 1850.597 1757.659 1720.858 1615.162 1648.669 1931.467 1812.419 1713.384
worst 1601.12 2164.347 1911.539 2259.074 1709.675 2203.316 2057.119 1865.397 1815.303 1725.282 2237.85 2061.587 1822.905
C17-F16
std 0.341437 120.0836 123.4574 205.2288 32.43533 172.9718 153.8331 66.0704 89.25039 38.59988 150.5739 124.7427 57.58986
median 1600.781 1951.022 1824.31 1961.004 1686.121 2027.277 1961.965 1819.883 1730.215 1659.94 2018.978 1881.095 1818.339
rank 1 11 6 10 3 12 9 7 4 2 13 8 5
mean 1700.099 1811.032 1748.702 1813.071 1734.143 1797.616 1835.539 1836.38 1765.464 1755.775 1840.193 1750.025 1753.483
best 1700.02 1806.017 1732.879 1796.914 1720.932 1783.119 1770.312 1775.004 1723.38 1746.088 1745.794 1743.685 1750.49
worst 1700.332 1816.495 1790.749 1821.878 1771.561 1808.017 1880.859 1939.243 1863.908 1765.275 1960.858 1756.411 1755.807
C17-F17
std 0.1677 4.781214 30.37525 11.99733 26.97435 11.55907 51.90246 84.05218 71.29364 10.26317 118.527 5.882847 2.595165
median 1700.022 1810.809 1735.591 1816.747 1722.039 1799.664 1845.492 1815.637 1737.285 1755.869 1827.061 1750.002 1753.817
rank 1 9 3 10 2 8 11 12 7 6 13 4 5
mean 1805.36 2,720,945 11,379.46 5,427,103 10,610.98 11,572.34 22,285.37 20,036.95 19,045.42 28,187.83 9337.384 20,922.06 12,291.63
best 1800.003 139,186.2 4700.101 268,745.2 4046.981 7197.034 6229.563 8374.975 6109.303 22,936.29 6176.433 2829.558 3358.621
worst 1820.451 7,885,942 14,941.16 15,754,410 15,819.61 15,599.76 34,954.29 32,194.69 32,078.69 35,234.85 11,378.71 38,889.97 17,690.1
C17-F18
std 10.87647 3,878,075 4962.863 7,754,807 5786.63 3777.008 14,959.81 12,120.25 14,233.07 6114.069 2399.699 20,119.65 6765.819
median 1800.492 1,429,325 12,938.29 2,842,628 11,288.65 11,746.28 23,978.81 19,789.06 18,996.84 27290.1 9897.196 20,984.36 14,058.91
rank 1 12 4 13 3 5 10 8 7 11 2 9 6
mean 1900.445 382,128.4 6480.047 670,534.1 5422.75 119643 33,241.73 1914.076 5218.417 4563.893 38,592.68 23850.92 5979.281
best 1900.039 23,669.33 2163.674 43,727.29 2298.029 1946.892 7386.054 1908.976 1942.621 2036.535 10,666.06 2590.192 2198.397
worst 1901.559 807,918.7 12,704.9 1,440,333 9059.158 238,893.5 60,779.89 1923.162 13,242.88 11,986.18 55,936.27 73,319.61 9503.385
C17-F19
std 0.804778 363,558.4 5540.043 680,945.1 3724.541 146,862.2 23,690.54 7.245959 5842.633 5348.197 21,912.64 36,044.78 3257.444
median 1900.09 348,462.7 5525.808 599,038.2 5166.907 118,865.8 32,400.49 1912.082 2844.083 2116.429 43,884.19 9746.935 6107.67
rank 1 12 7 13 5 11 9 2 4 3 10 8 6
mean 2000.312 2204.87 2162.463 2212.433 2087.948 2197.531 2196.784 2132.936 2161.848 2068.592 2241.649 2160.956 2047.84
best 2000.312 2147.953 2029.856 2156.715 2069.305 2101.643 2093.668 2044.722 2124.703 2058.09 2178.862 2137.978 2034.123
worst 2000.312 2273.291 2280.509 2265.22 2117.006 2305.659 2274.207 2235.683 2234.319 2078.517 2330.323 2191.288 2055.236
C17-F20
std 0 55.95046 121.8733 57.71282 22.09133 93.40801 93.27596 84.74551 53.40734 9.256346 79.64236 28.63668 10.52061
median 2000.312 2199.118 2169.743 2213.898 2082.741 2191.412 2209.631 2125.669 2144.184 2068.881 2228.705 2157.279 2051
rank 1 11 8 12 4 10 9 5 7 3 13 6 2
mean 2200 2289.451 2213.16 2263.977 2254.517 2319.303 2304.709 2250.653 2307.984 2295.016 2360.425 2313.231 2293.568
best 2200 2243.728 2203.935 2222.833 2252.144 2220.235 2217.531 2200.007 2303.973 2203.545 2343.766 2305.548 2225.313
worst 2200 2313.224 2237.184 2287.371 2256.934 2364.061 2346.83 2302.568 2312.721 2331.891 2376.94 2320.429 2326.589
C17-F21
std 0 35.38769 17.36401 30.84939 2.191022 72.61342 63.60808 63.21616 3.888176 66.38128 14.98381 7.910979 49.80776
median 2200 2300.426 2205.761 2272.853 2254.494 2346.458 2327.237 2250.019 2307.621 2322.315 2360.496 2313.473 2311.184
rank 1 6 2 5 4 12 9 3 10 8 13 11 7
mean 2300.073 2735.26 2308.571 2887.391 2304.777 2694.741 2322.704 2286.437 2308.206 2318.672 2300.008 2312.66 2317.103
best 2300 2612.518 2304.162 2688.154 2300.9 2442.249 2318.25 2232.7 2301.208 2312.71 2300 2300.609 2314.334
worst 2300.29 2877.797 2310.632 3033.613 2308.929 2892.997 2329.991 2305.061 2321.374 2329.864 2300.032 2343.368 2321.375
C17-F22
std 0.156805 135.1716 3.217222 157.2229 3.655692 217.4236 5.666251 38.73174 10.02473 8.486782 0.017512 22.17284 3.252344
median 2300 2725.362 2309.746 2913.897 2304.639 2721.858 2321.286 2303.994 2305.122 2316.057 2300 2303.333 2316.352
rank 3 12 6 13 4 11 10 1 5 9 2 7 8
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 15 of 54

Table 2. Cont.

KOA WSO AVOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 2600.919 2696.384 2640.282 2696.181 2613.729 2717.995 2646.632 2619.402 2613.171 2640.736 2783.332 2642.401 2653.732
best 2600.003 2652.88 2629.345 2668.577 2611.49 2632.886 2629.516 2606.881 2607.585 2630.312 2721.168 2635.614 2634.636
worst 2602.87 2721.482 2657.221 2734.934 2616.275 2760.405 2666.012 2630.427 2619.553 2649.718 2915.529 2653.755 2661.733
C17-F23
std 1.427016 34.47961 14.2173 33.55836 2.476768 62.28981 21.24948 11.06696 6.702293 9.295428 98.69733 8.898797 13.97597
median 2600.403 2705.587 2637.282 2690.607 2613.575 2739.345 2645.5 2620.151 2612.773 2641.457 2748.316 2640.118 2659.279
rank 1 11 5 10 3 12 8 4 2 6 13 7 9
mean 2630.488 2766.593 2761.5 2840.118 2630.645 2666.605 2754.816 2680.964 2743.511 2750.251 2742.257 2759.547 2718.993
best 2516.677 2707.392 2726.529 2815.839 2612.188 2534.895 2724.621 2502.024 2715.242 2733.589 2504.848 2748.125 2546.618
worst 2732.32 2853.043 2783.053 2903.567 2641.946 2808.346 2788.924 2758.212 2758.78 2765.011 2890.232 2783.848 2807.47
C17-F24
std 125.9143 75.9419 27.6873 45.77957 14.62564 158.6431 28.97391 129.9664 21.1953 16.62111 179.2091 17.7425 126.4467
median 2636.477 2752.969 2768.209 2820.534 2634.224 2661.59 2752.86 2731.809 2750.01 2751.202 2786.974 2753.108 2760.941
rank 1 12 11 13 2 3 9 4 7 8 6 10 5
mean 2932.639 3160.476 2914.357 3261.191 2918.565 3124.511 2908.677 2922.579 2938.422 2933.489 2922.742 2923.757 2951.355
best 2898.047 3059.126 2899.047 3196.151 2915.169 2907.548 2772.937 2902.876 2922.403 2915.286 2904.47 2898.64 2936.383
worst 2945.793 3377.692 2948.782 3332.197 2924.264 3623.252 2956.366 2943.701 2945.776 2951.903 2943.394 2946.519 2961.892
C17-F25
std 24.95556 158.0947 24.97843 60.78711 4.621638 363.3763 97.86807 24.42714 11.68901 21.3807 22.74034 27.8157 11.82051
median 2943.359 3102.544 2904.799 3258.209 2917.413 2983.623 2952.703 2921.87 2942.754 2933.383 2921.552 2924.935 2953.573
rank 7 12 2 13 3 11 1 4 9 8 5 6 10
mean 2900 3590.504 2976.275 3717.955 3006.657 3588.502 3170.338 2900.141 3248.952 3192.893 3818.581 2903.878 2897.341
best 2900 3253.229 2811.168 3408.598 2892.468 3133.274 2925.995 2900.108 2966.126 2911.514 2811.168 2811.168 2716.041
worst 2900 3838.081 3145.308 4039.913 3275.942 4208.271 3563.03 2900.185 3862.063 3832.048 4284.157 3004.343 3100.218
C17-F26
std 4.01 × 10−13 318.5314 206.0825 294.2025 194.9322 568.1313 301.0223 0.036937 445.8368 463.5612 737.6724 85.37276 210.3024
median 2900 3635.352 2974.312 3711.654 2929.108 3506.23 3096.163 2900.136 3083.81 3014.005 4089.499 2900 2886.553
rank 2 11 5 12 6 10 7 3 9 8 13 4 1
mean 3089.518 3202.346 3118.638 3224.783 3104.012 3175.498 3190.204 3091.534 3114.92 3113.947 3219.915 3133.99 3156.849
best 3089.518 3155.296 3095.047 3125.526 3092.121 3101.851 3175.022 3089.702 3094.217 3095.122 3208.298 3096.756 3118.008
worst 3089.518 3268.648 3176.831 3408.258 3131.827 3215.862 3201.44 3094.72 3172.873 3167.605 3240.504 3179.191 3213.141
C17-F27
std 2.84 × 10−13 51.46529 42.05219 135.3805 20.18765 55.82681 11.91661 2.551364 41.79912 38.67197 15.48972 37.46758 43.47098
median 3089.518 3192.721 3101.337 3182.674 3096.05 3192.139 3192.177 3090.856 3096.294 3096.53 3215.43 3130.007 3148.123
rank 1 11 6 13 3 9 10 2 5 4 12 7 8
mean 3100 3613.12 3229.856 3748.016 3213.098 3563.939 3278.224 3232.355 3333.69 3314.747 3434.636 3296.217 3239.629
best 3100 3564.242 3100 3669.487 3163.857 3398.145 3150.272 3100.118 3190.342 3208.737 3421.984 3173.571 3142.818
worst 3100 3658.602 3376.998 3804.7 3236.846 3763.532 3377.485 3376.998 3397.699 3377.228 3452.218 3377.203 3494.4
C17-F28
std 0 45.32491 132.4232 67.82996 36.51153 204.8201 126.2074 165.3185 104.0978 86.92067 15.1415 99.78275 184.2716
median 3100 3614.818 3221.214 3758.937 3225.844 3547.04 3292.569 3226.152 3373.359 3336.512 3432.171 3317.047 3160.649
rank 1 12 3 13 2 11 6 4 9 8 10 7 5
mean 3132.241 3314.139 3277.755 3364.373 3199.962 3231.62 3339.237 3199.563 3259.274 3209.074 3336.362 3260.107 3232.573
best 3130.076 3287.353 3206.836 3296.097 3164.379 3164.684 3231.004 3141.96 3187.414 3164.081 3229.306 3166.223 3186.047
worst 3134.841 3333.919 3355.015 3428.46 3239.695 3298.457 3479.7 3279.517 3368.515 3230.887 3612.426 3339.331 3279.39
C17-F29
std 2.682921 24.34197 82.5024 73.75275 35.7886 59.16538 112.7108 62.92391 93.13042 33.84792 199.7285 84.89115 42.47972
median 3132.023 3317.643 3274.584 3366.468 3197.887 3231.669 3323.123 3188.387 3240.583 3220.665 3251.858 3267.436 3232.427
rank 1 10 9 13 3 5 12 2 7 4 11 8 6
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 16 of 54

Table 2. Cont.

KOA WSO AVOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 3418.734 2,094,369 280,491.5 3,496,344 394,645.1 584,643.1 943,812.6 288,243.6 890,238.3 57,836.15 744,606.5 368,495.7 1,452,803
best 3394.682 1,139,771 99,730.8 787,314.7 15,318.09 106,985.2 4415.907 7241.996 32,113.8 28,026.15 572,501.3 6250.265 500,267.8
worst 3442.907 3,222,881 730,437.6 5,522,322 582,379.3 1,236,001 3,562,526 1,098,507 1,288,325 96,953.6 950,837.1 730,472.4 3,309,498
C17-F30
std 30.01454 927,639.1 325,084.1 2,142,747 278,341 518,513.2 1,889,224 584,012.6 637,919.8 36,384.93 169,923.6 451,146.3 1,431,174
median 3418.673 2007,412 145,898.9 3,837,870 490,441.6 497,792.9 104,154.4 23613 1,120,257 53,182.43 727,543.8 368,630 1,000,724
rank 1 12 3 13 6 7 10 4 9 2 8 5 11
Sum rank 38 325 177 347 106 282 239 116 188 191 238 183 197

Mean rank 1.31 11.2 6.10 12 3.66 9.72 8.24 4.00 6.48 6.59 8.21 6.31 6.79

Total rank 1 12 4 13 2 11 10 3 6 7 9 5 8

Table 3. Optimization results of CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 30).

KOA WSO AVOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 100 2.49 × 1010 2952.398 3.89 × 1010 25,349.41 1.7 × 1010 1.61 × 109 508,943.7 1.58 × 109 5.84 × 109 9,943,348 1.33 × 109 1.69 × 108
best 100 2.14 × 1010 270.1836 3.47 × 1010 11,668.69 1.07 × 1010 1.27 × 109 395,393.4 2.6 × 108 3.69 × 109 2400.729 3551.009 1.26 × 108
worst 100 3.11 × 1010 7250.693 4.79 × 1010 38,538.32 2.31 × 1010 2 × 109 647,323.3 4.76 × 109 8.71 × 109 34,713,198 5.31 × 109 2.33 × 108
C17-F1
std 8.87 × 10−15 4.89 × 109 3536.471 6.56 × 109 14,034.64 6.3 × 109 4.03 × 108 134,582.1 2.3 × 109 2.26 × 109 18,032,225 2.87 × 109 49,948,590
median 100 2.35 × 1010 2144.357 3.65 × 1010 25,595.31 1.7 × 1010 1.58 × 109 496,529 6.51 × 108 5.48 × 109 2,528,896 3,024,996 1.58 × 108
rank 1 12 2 13 3 11 9 4 8 10 5 7 6
mean 300 92,153.76 42,326.24 69,683.06 1059.571 44,689.85 219,526.4 1696.502 39,453.42 32,842.34 90,744.25 30,201.43 158,298.6
best 300 84,157.35 22,988.07 53,966.73 821.5916 42,342.1 181,622.8 1336.346 34,468.66 27,963.1 78,127.36 21,553 119,788.6
worst 300 101,179 54,730.87 75,694.69 1300.824 47,088.12 252,193.8 2324.308 44,060.35 35,568.41 99,929.63 38,785.04 219,938.2
C17-F3
std 0 9080.451 14,710.29 11,360.72 232.5882 2570.157 31,725.49 473.5833 4252.853 3701.235 10,628.4 8483.986 51,375.34
median 300 91,639.33 45,793 74,535.41 1057.934 44,664.59 222,144.5 1562.677 39,642.33 33,918.93 92,460.01 30,233.85 146,733.9
rank 1 11 7 9 2 8 13 3 6 5 10 4 12
mean 458.5616 6128.233 511.6871 9325.613 491.3039 4327.565 835.7871 494.7428 565.8432 883.973 587.5266 615.3381 793.266
best 458.5616 3452.638 490.0475 5985.996 481.3822 1016.012 774.1829 487.3012 513.1528 687.9052 568.2553 512.664 743.8779
worst 458.5616 8287.243 528.8878 13026.04 511.9059 7178.144 912.6984 507.5081 595.5328 1262.83 609.6755 793.8941 815.7684
C17-F4
std 0 2165.688 17.41837 3158.382 15.15013 2812.58 68.3073 9.658623 39.12174 278.2517 19.52181 139.5195 36.4108
median 458.5616 6386.526 513.9066 9145.206 485.9638 4558.052 828.1336 492.081 577.3437 792.5785 586.0879 577.3971 806.7089
rank 1 12 4 13 2 11 9 3 5 10 6 7 8
mean 502.4874 827.2903 713.9748 864.4705 579.0909 779.0051 806.7678 613.4365 615.7996 756.6456 711.5144 625.9249 692.1274
best 500.995 808.357 678.9904 839.7565 557.682 751.8996 779.2013 599.2833 577.3504 735.1627 693.0098 602.6682 645.5771
worst 503.9798 847.5287 769.6813 896.8244 600.8691 810.9206 819.8405 646.7345 643.1417 781.6338 736.4281 672.8274 751.9071
C17-F5
std 1.388273 17.6368 44.33189 29.45868 19.55685 30.05426 20.08862 24.1357 35.13228 24.27559 20.94377 34.45568 47.6562
median 502.4874 826.6379 703.6137 860.6505 578.9063 776.6002 814.0148 603.8641 621.3532 754.893 708.3097 614.1021 685.5127
rank 1 12 8 13 2 10 11 3 4 9 7 5 6
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 17 of 54

Table 3. Cont.

KOA WSO AVOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 600 675.4703 644.1356 678.461 603.0903 672.7694 672.0451 623.0537 611.238 640.938 653.3996 644.3518 628.5215
best 600 674.2169 642.2589 673.4417 601.8882 658.2745 661.7335 611.8056 604.4229 634.2103 652.6949 632.8396 621.8723
worst 600 676.7159 647.0704 684.7624 604.4175 681.2908 677.1697 635.0517 617.9433 651.9022 654.3359 654.5071 632.8719
C17-F6
std 7.09 × 10−14 1.113644 2.247546 5.651016 1.187816 11.69702 7.612886 11.8271 6.014296 8.405992 0.781807 10.3672 5.178989
median 600 675.4743 643.6065 677.8199 603.0277 675.7562 674.6386 622.6788 611.2929 638.8197 653.2839 645.0302 629.671
rank 1 12 7 13 2 11 10 4 3 6 9 8 5
mean 733.478 1268.013 1124.657 1306.605 841.0554 1198.026 1276.514 848.0105 877.9558 1057.553 958.8085 871.0261 955.2704
best 732.8186 1222.778 1014.897 1293.645 815.4113 1060.213 1235.449 797.4056 811.3341 974.0064 914.078 850.9112 917.6521
worst 734.5199 1302.862 1278.106 1328.756 892.1383 1340.273 1353.189 918.1625 916.1328 1130.318 1025.628 896.943 1007.187
C17-F7
std 0.814948 37.47192 125.7292 16.8812 37.51134 131.312 59.11282 55.88792 49.56736 88.24602 52.88124 21.53589 40.50579
median 733.2867 1273.207 1102.813 1302.01 828.3361 1195.808 1258.709 838.2369 892.1782 1062.945 947.7642 868.125 948.1212
rank 1 11 9 13 2 10 12 3 5 8 7 4 6
mean 803.3298 1070.174 942.2719 1105.554 886.447 1045.612 1018.567 889.0451 887.7806 1011.206 953.4965 917.6519 976.862
best 801.2023 1055.725 913.5956 1086.05 880.0891 1003.491 964.9791 859.9631 881.1796 993.2392 930.3884 906.5052 961.5987
worst 804.1574 1089.433 962.762 1131.271 894.2287 1144.329 1058.264 917.3973 895.4335 1042.625 978.9794 932.744 996.3589
C17-F8
std 1.535629 16.69147 24.14288 24.80971 6.318887 71.82849 43.10224 27.18019 6.702496 23.36502 23.19143 12.62398 18.97697
median 803.9798 1067.769 946.365 1102.447 885.7352 1017.314 1025.513 889.41 887.2546 1004.481 952.3092 915.6791 974.7452
rank 1 12 6 13 2 11 10 4 3 9 7 5 8
mean 900 10,428.87 4615.015 10,107.64 1075.025 10,925.08 10487.61 5212.126 2015.128 5513.265 3910.222 3406.802 1272.37
best 900 8917.718 3422.76 9859.698 928.2135 6674.676 8027.565 4160.937 1504.993 3995.937 3401.26 2052.368 1071.172
worst 900 11,851.73 5252.057 10,233.16 1219.778 14,741.2 12,497.63 7944.628 2760.734 8299.525 4694.308 5168.799 1472.054
C17-F9
std 7.09 × 10−14 1319.296 884.851 181.7597 145.6568 3601.656 2430.474 1973.745 658.5688 2105.111 615.622 1428.948 203.3894
median 900 10,473 4892.621 10168.85 1076.054 111,42.23 10,712.61 4371.469 1897.392 4878.799 3772.66 3203.022 1273.127
rank 1 11 7 10 2 13 12 8 4 9 6 5 3
mean 2293.267 6968.874 5292.417 7618.404 3904.89 6343.463 6283.162 4530.69 4662.67 7637.039 4718.957 4901.116 5947.831
best 1851.756 6395.829 4601.986 6781.76 3569.884 4998.608 5444.387 4262.331 4179.57 7294.433 4471.779 4672.72 5493.727
worst 2525.027 7274.901 5750.32 8221.579 4309.538 6917.445 7526.832 4906.336 4954.674 7810.147 5116.464 5348.142 6464.514
C17-F10
std 324.6445 424.0634 597.1511 655.0785 369.1495 974.92 997.2449 345.3045 366.0832 251.5575 328.7644 330.2447 496.3163
median 2398.142 7102.382 5408.681 7735.139 3870.069 6728.9 6080.714 4477.045 4758.219 7721.789 4643.792 4791.8 5916.541
rank 1 11 7 12 2 10 9 3 4 13 5 6 8
mean 1102.987 7176.983 1250.189 8409.622 1166.464 4925.027 7473.318 1303.696 2139.493 1942.773 2806.902 1242.149 8757.885
best 1100.995 5915.713 1186.572 6856.566 1121.261 3511.464 5386.337 1262.477 1375.234 1564.539 2184.741 1214.111 3247.773
worst 1105.977 8212.328 1311.123 9458.04 1198.506 7406.649 11,036.34 1343.487 4172.022 2640.713 3444.25 1268.793 16,401.46
C17-F11
std 2.32642 1091.276 56.12963 1288.136 36.05235 1891.211 2661.731 49.30714 1466.531 515.0742 641.6108 28.63459 6093.036
median 1102.487 7289.945 1251.531 8661.941 1173.044 4390.997 6735.297 1304.409 1505.358 1782.92 2799.309 1242.846 7691.156
rank 1 10 4 12 2 9 11 5 7 6 8 3 13
mean 1744.553 6.67 × 109 19,805,086 1.04 × 1010 20,633.44 4.81 × 109 2.35 × 108 10,662,962 49,904,305 2.87 × 108 1.89 × 108 2,434,411 7,299,327
best 1721.81 5.51 × 109 2,786,976 9.23 × 109 14,762.4 2.48 × 109 60150408 4,951,435 4,843,965 1.83 × 108 36548589 263,184.6 5,054,160
worst 1764.937 8.47 × 109 48,369,635 1.3 × 1010 26,305.47 6.3 × 109 4.7 × 108 25,798,820 1.05 × 108 4.98 × 108 6.04 × 108 4,840,042 9,554,266
C17-F12 std 21.78111 1.37 × 109 21,685,993 1.95 × 109 5316.077 1.78 × 109 2.04 × 108 10,922,498 47,029,306 1.54 × 108 2.99 × 108 2,133,734 2,205,980
median 1745.733 6.35 × 109 14,031,866 9.58 × 109 20,732.95 5.24 × 109 2.06 × 108 5,950,797 45,060,704 2.33 × 108 57944215 2,317,209 7,294,441
rank 1 12 6 13 2 11 9 5 7 10 8 3 4
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 18 of 54

Table 3. Cont.

KOA WSO AVOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 1315.791 5.42 × 109 142,111.3 1 × 1010 1860.563 1.39 × 109 858,772.9 86,428.26 716,806.2 83,718,700 34,704.4 30,802.39 11,311,917
best 1314.587 2.64 × 109 78,705.99 5.26 × 109 1599.709 18,730,491 405,245.9 34,645.94 86,601.55 58,138,598 28,163.04 12,779.66 3,069,111
worst 1318.646 7.6 × 109 224,731.1 1.23 × 1010 2371.471 4.82 × 109 1,269,702 173,553.6 2,224,190 1.23 × 108 50,752.28 69,517.33 24,331,862
C17-F13
std 2.092732 2.22 × 109 65,540.46 3.48 × 109 376.9899 2.49 × 109 487,133.8 70,503.7 1,100,210 30,542,225 11,691.81 28,221.27 9,848,338
median 1314.967 5.73 × 109 132,504 1.13 × 1010 1735.535 3.58 × 108 880,071.8 68,756.73 278,216.3 76,643,172 29,951.14 20,456.29 8,923,348
rank 1 12 6 13 2 11 8 5 7 10 4 3 9
mean 1423.017 1,797,166 257,250.7 2,082,651 1439.516 1,113,810 2,108,486 19,356.09 505,563.4 132,706.9 1,084,630 17,864.1 1,903,549
best 1422.014 1,108,273 36,037.67 1,046,798 1436.282 797,013.4 34,119.66 4805.772 32,658.35 77,153.62 703,827 3083.949 315,132.9
worst 1423.993 2,274,971 595,484.3 3,101,244 1444.053 1,573,489 6,441,173 32,904.74 1,083,474 152,680.3 1,637,610 32,561.19 3,209,189
C17-F14
std 0.873477 590,204.9 266,785.8 1,068,141 3.836186 385,143.4 3,179,950 13,081.47 576,571.5 40,043.56 474,950 13,917.18 1,442,616
median 1423.03 1,902,710 198,740.4 2,091,282 1438.864 1,042,369 979,324.6 19,856.93 453,060.4 150,496.8 998,541.5 17,905.64 2,044,936
rank 1 10 6 12 2 9 13 4 7 5 8 3 11
mean 1503.129 2.88 × 108 35,569.23 5.66 × 108 1612.888 13,622,278 4,780,527 40,622.22 14,998,288 4,865,200 15,307.25 4607.767 905,696.1
best 1502.462 2.49 × 108 10,436.55 4.89 × 108 1577.289 5,366,361 220,281.9 23,546.64 93,188.24 1,104,763 10,895.36 1892.48 166,303.4
worst 1504.265 3.19 × 108 57,716.98 6.25 × 108 1628.803 31,688,091 15,521,689 67,155.27 56,155,773 9,158,236 20,732.11 8499. 218 2,029,134
C17-F15
std 0.924686 37401288 21,580.75 72366016 25.84869 13,131,914 7,844,999 20,427.96 29,669,958 3,569,005 4444.669 3162.61 921,310.6
median 1502.893 2.92 × 108 37061.7 5.76 × 108 1622.73 8,717,330 1,690,069 35,893.49 1,872,096 4,598,900 14,800.76 4019.686 713,673.5
rank 1 12 5 13 2 10 8 6 11 9 4 3 7
mean 1663.469 4179.978 2931.478 4803.049 2008.781 3188.323 4109.782 2540.403 2498.513 3370.786 3562.069 2865.142 2883.088
best 1614.72 3864.085 2506.541 4063.573 1726.769 2785.57 3390.133 2316.58 2354.879 3186.311 3383.684 2632.807 2554.441
worst 1744.118 4441.066 3426.897 5467.226 2248.557 3431.42 4915.665 2791.01 2613.187 3592.217 3727.743 3130.503 3214.078
C17-F16
std 66.97934 285.5894 409.083 811.8548 253.5446 308.6033 679.296 221.1256 142.7455 193.5071 165.786 271.8786 346.6355
median 1647.519 4207.381 2896.238 4840.699 2029.899 3268.152 4066.665 2527.01 2512.993 3352.309 3568.425 2848.63 2881.917
rank 1 12 7 13 2 8 11 4 3 9 10 5 6
mean 1728.099 3324.479 2438.547 3613.262 1858.056 3196.77 2794.085 2065.676 1925.308 2173.563 2486.032 2307.397 2137.267
best 1718.761 2752.707 2299.939 3251.306 1752.386 2197.969 2338.319 2016.464 1801.98 1956.937 2390.162 2082.368 2092.547
worst 1733.659 4032.229 2548.404 4253.792 1916.907 5812.541 3103.359 2208.975 2067.097 2455.83 2629.866 2682.335 2204.127
C17-F17
std 7.250066 588.8234 117.6491 490.701 78.4514 1887.423 353.6048 103.2636 136.4408 228.6407 126.3251 291.0375 55.36113
median 1729.987 3256.489 2452.922 3473.974 1881.465 2388.285 2867.33 2018.633 1916.078 2140.743 2462.051 2232.443 2126.196
rank 1 12 8 13 2 11 10 4 3 6 9 7 5
mean 1825.696 26,931,134 2,510,229 30,965,156 1893.241 34,433,844 5,592,013 606,481.9 397,606.5 1,578,660 488,013.6 130,103.3 3,454,546
best 1822.524 7,758,022 267,396.5 10,011,130 1871.842 1,262,746 1,884,521 152,677.2 74,409.88 732,924.3 273,634.5 92,598.72 2,696,975
worst 1828.42 52,301,633 5,008,394 60,834,279 1905.758 65,253,789 11,541,782 1,641,661 1,021,471 1,984,645 950,086.7 154,354 5,063,684
C17-F18
std 2.920243 21,282,724 2,401,473 23,292,806 16.42987 38,406,296 4,485,278 750,625.6 481,717.9 622,015.2 337,280 29,181.38 1,172,748
median 1825.92 23,832,440 2,382,564 26,507,607 1897.682 35,609,421 4,470,874 315,794.9 247,272.6 1,798,535 364,166.6 136,730.3 3,028,763
rank 1 11 8 12 2 13 10 6 4 7 5 3 9
mean 1910.989 5.5 × 108 64,244.08 9.28 × 108 1923.18 2.79 × 108 13,576,235 890,246 3,821,835 5,449,857 77,576.92 42,261.41 1,536,207
best 1908.84 4.12 × 108 13,773.69 6.7 × 108 1920.673 3464988 1,766,689 22,555.99 67,193.05 2,828,858 42,121.24 8400.832 607,052
worst 1913.095 7.16 × 108 142,987 1.41 × 109 1927.772 7.73 × 108 23,442,333 2,001,464 12,323,882 7,746,868 104,364.3 126,378.5 2,729,001
C17-F19
std 2.088116 1.65 × 108 60,833.73 3.53 × 108 3.409684 3.84 × 108 10,683,239 1,040,847 6,167,780 2,614,547 28,005.75 60,818.97 967,255
median 1911.01 5.37 × 108 50,107.82 8.18 × 108 1922.138 1.7 × 108 14,547,958 768,481.8 1,448,133 5,611,851 81,911.05 17,133.15 1,404,386
rank 1 12 4 13 2 11 10 6 8 9 5 3 7
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 19 of 54

Table 3. Cont.

KOA WSO AVOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 2065.787 2861.078 2609.892 2912.496 2171.656 2814.376 2802.585 2580.819 2361.243 2764.973 2966.569 2525.574 2456.993
best 2029.521 2772.475 2456.75 2741.1 2059.851 2675.689 2611.744 2358.871 2193.895 2683.202 2608.142 2475.735 2409.455
worst 2161.126 2969.379 2833.462 3016.856 2260.42 2958.251 2974.494 2972.518 2523.041 2881.522 3428.076 2650.355 2491.316
C17-F20
std 68.78908 87.95898 176.5827 130.5254 90.25521 126.4284 167.7548 291.3799 145.3611 100.6955 371.7545 90.13694 37.95021
median 2036.25 2851.229 2574.679 2946.014 2183.176 2811.782 2812.052 2495.944 2364.018 2747.584 2915.028 2488.104 2463.601
rank 1 11 7 12 2 10 9 6 3 8 13 5 4
mean 2308.456 2608.644 2435.242 2663.434 2363.914 2525.058 2597.048 2401.026 2386.5 2487.264 2558.71 2429.096 2484.514
best 2304.034 2518.58 2221.839 2588.295 2354.475 2308.061 2523.336 2366.7 2352.907 2475.477 2541.004 2410.516 2452.745
worst 2312.987 2668.213 2585.45 2752.462 2379.402 2653.222 2660.071 2429.705 2401.211 2497.343 2593.162 2442.179 2533.053
C17-F21
std 4.819332 76.35051 165.502 77.25403 11.8397 164.6534 72.8331 28.30641 24.66245 11.63614 25.27778 16.83741 36.99578
median 2308.402 2623.892 2466.84 2656.49 2360.89 2569.475 2602.391 2403.85 2395.942 2488.118 2550.336 2431.845 2476.128
rank 1 12 6 13 2 9 11 4 3 8 10 5 7
mean 2300 7730.487 5617.266 7498.517 2302.796 8485.27 7178.241 3880.696 2685.993 5534.065 6147.871 4769.329 2684.245
best 2300 7406.201 2302.919 6514.137 2301.824 8264.458 6264.079 2306.212 2562.444 2704.811 3925.426 2450.695 2612.661
worst 2300 8236.5 6897.797 8487.871 2304.438 8589.519 7993.792 5835.971 2939.979 8670.963 7124.591 7013.27 2739.565
C17-F22
std 0 383.5138 2391.94 916.8349 1.267341 165.0934 776.8943 1992.539 186.6203 3511.039 1611.848 2267.796 67.97661
median 2300 7639.625 6634.174 7496.029 2302.461 8543.551 7227.546 3690.3 2620.775 5380.243 6770.735 4806.675 2692.377
rank 1 12 8 11 2 13 10 5 4 7 9 6 3
mean 2655.081 3170.804 2916.435 3223.533 2646.423 3175.484 3031.962 2734.376 2747.574 2894.308 3724.216 2891.062 2962.989
best 2653.745 3088.315 2811.411 3171.39 2478.867 3061.316 2861.72 2691.678 2728.555 2873.272 3620.24 2859.001 2934.863
worst 2657.377 3249.328 3082.548 3299.152 2710.309 3365.1 3127.898 2762.31 2767.576 2942.516 3826.997 2940.298 3024.002
C17-F23
std 1.786778 81.79862 128.3865 60.06802 121.0374 144.8298 127.7156 32.64114 18.18122 35.37896 118.3582 40.56704 44.366
median 2654.6 3172.787 2885.891 3211.795 2698.258 3137.761 3069.114 2741.758 2747.083 2880.722 3724.813 2882.475 2946.546
rank 2 10 7 12 1 11 9 3 4 6 13 5 8
mean 2831.409 3296.848 3158.037 3393.084 2881.606 3263.916 3105.656 2902.994 2917.582 3034.353 3343.978 3119.77 3211.401
best 2829.992 3260.373 3024.392 3307.127 2866.584 3158.668 3043.783 2856.611 2905.496 3011.572 3308.343 3046.659 3120.381
worst 2832.366 3372.507 3307.527 3542.546 2888.197 3313.313 3130.843 2924.994 2924.388 3069.382 3380.441 3229.636 3287.664
C17-F24
std 1.238124 55.19726 134.4146 117.6224 10.96633 77.97751 44.80036 33.87131 9.179607 26.62799 34.43815 84.7416 83.90434
median 2831.64 3277.257 3150.115 3361.332 2885.822 3291.842 3123.998 2915.185 2920.222 3028.23 3343.564 3101.392 3218.78
rank 1 11 8 13 2 10 6 3 4 5 12 7 9
mean 2886.698 3898.903 2907.836 4500.07 2891.104 3446.751 3074.216 2908.624 2989.141 3067.347 2991.194 2894.634 3099.011
best 2886.691 3536.836 2894.158 3919.097 2884.617 3083.235 3039.124 2884.613 2952.551 2951.169 2980.071 2887.569 3082.866
worst 2886.707 4170.01 2945.463 5274.43 2897.059 3824.188 3092.665 2970.316 3057.272 3199.466 3003.259 2911.21 3110.566
C17-F25
std 0.00822 285.7001 27.13135 610.0829 6.077511 391.4253 27.21077 44.57098 52.48505 128.3309 10.34894 12.00107 13.22934
median 2886.698 3944.383 2895.861 4403.376 2891.37 3439.79 3082.537 2889.784 2973.372 3059.377 2990.723 2889.879 3101.307
rank 1 12 4 13 2 11 9 5 6 8 7 3 10
mean 3578.65 8951.361 7176.459 9515.634 2976.112 8524.239 8181.363 4738 4524.954 5828.595 7315.992 4796.903 4360.868
best 3559.841 8541.253 5941.453 8710.682 2973.861 7888.519 7475.009 4405.337 4144.872 4500.499 6305.049 3546.88 3990.712
worst 3607.686 9687.167 7903.144 10,940.76 2979.46 8925.221 9002.183 5345.139 5113.309 7089.473 7842.161 6284.299 4813.412
C17-F26
std 24.61688 577.1178 932.4917 1131.659 2.89745 480.5102 677.8715 471.9772 446.6385 1282.693 774.509 1381.508 372.9654
median 3573.536 8788.512 7430.62 9205.547 2975.565 8641.608 8124.131 4600.762 4420.818 5862.204 7558.38 4678.216 4319.674
rank 2 12 8 13 1 11 10 5 4 7 9 6 3
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 20 of 54

Table 3. Cont.

KOA WSO AVOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 3207.018 3595.037 3349.708 3744.391 3214.319 3463.398 3419.111 3230.47 3248.194 3313.698 4903.936 3275.914 3450.04
best 3200.749 3538.093 3266.538 3474.172 3200.956 3334.416 3255.937 3212.443 3239.412 3239.11 4470.334 3238.363 3375.739
worst 3210.656 3691.737 3422.578 4020.914 3233.651 3703.463 3540.445 3255.803 3262.719 3383.508 5219.687 3316.924 3493.865
C17-F27
std 5.023361 74.0999 88.62389 253.3399 16.22388 177.9035 131.9415 19.66992 10.89568 64.60731 396.689 36.71613 55.61351
median 3208.335 3575.159 3354.858 3741.239 3211.335 3407.856 3440.031 3226.816 3245.322 3316.086 4962.861 3274.185 3465.278
rank 1 11 7 12 2 10 8 3 4 6 13 5 9
mean 3100 4715.982 3259.465 5591.034 3209.553 4117.781 3425.654 3250.611 3578.289 3647.974 3505.382 3320.401 3564.58
best 3100 4488.68 3229.694 5292.726 3193.586 3580.19 3366.85 3215.783 3386.277 3503.148 3436.694 3190.728 3514.318
worst 3100 4962.36 3290.424 5903.482 3238.681 4666.198 3478.795 3282.413 4047.397 3979.443 3649.532 3519.049 3619.148
C17-F28
std 2.84 × 10−13 219.3937 26.8343 315.3407 21.78097 543.4944 52.65941 29.60263 340.0468 241.5308 105.1355 164.2269 53.83889
median 3100 4706.444 3258.871 5583.963 3202.972 4112.368 3428.485 3252.125 3439.74 3554.653 3467.65 3285.913 3562.427
rank 1 12 4 13 2 11 6 3 9 10 7 5 8
mean 3353.75 5321.805 4294.249 5533.458 3646.04 5169.464 5021.186 3824.482 3774.045 4466.786 4998.063 4137.498 4251.863
best 3325.385 4887.175 3953.036 4925.474 3498.469 4645.242 4760.858 3700.725 3694.296 4148.96 4734.963 3945.945 3881.835
worst 3370.797 5782.959 4501.103 6368.181 3780.651 6023.404 5187.571 3942.033 3889.131 4932.794 5246.778 4373.878 4596.038
C17-F29
std 21.27976 466.7615 262.5544 766.6237 134.739 697.3597 197.3984 110.3398 94.00128 361.6177 296.0413 190.8879 345.3411
median 3359.41 5308.544 4361.429 5420.09 3652.519 5004.604 5068.157 3827.585 3756.376 4392.696 5005.255 4115.085 4264.79
rank 1 12 7 13 2 11 10 4 3 8 9 5 6
mean 5007.854 1.36 × 109 1,359,178 2.69 × 109 7559.769 36,618,487 37,367,034 2,947,714 6,078,409 36,074,281 2,156,344 259,931.3 669,154.3
best 4955.449 1 × 109 479,425.3 1.93 × 109 6312.163 12,519,461 7,452,113 529,406.7 1,356,066 19,310,289 1,882,361 7470.567 185,303.8
worst 5086.396 1.5 × 109 2,406,694 2.97 × 109 10,000.4 85,561,300 59,876,989 4,220,278 16,413,710 75,668,870 2,594,450 983,374.7 1,279,873
C17-F30 std 63.73953 2.6 × 108 870,882.7 5.47 × 108 1868.254 35,834,239 23,618,797 1,779,169 7,516,367 28,689,990 331,326.2 521,521 575,976.5
median 4994.785 1.48 × 109 1,275,296 2.93 × 109 6963.255 24,196,594 41,069,518 3,520,585 3,271,931 24,658,982 2,074,283 24,440 605,720.2
rank 1 12 5 13 2 10 11 7 8 9 6 3 4
Sum rank 31 334 182 361 57 305 284 128 151 232 231 139 204
Mean rank 1.07 11.5 6.28 12.4 1.97 10.5 9.79 4.41 5.21 8.00 7.97 4.79 7.03
Total rank 1 12 6 13 2 11 10 3 5 9 8 4 7

Table 4. Optimization results of CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 50).

KOA WSO AVOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 100 5.65 × 1010 8,732,323 8.85 × 1010 5,320,127 3.6 × 1010 7.27 × 109 3,840,463 8.84 × 109 1.96 × 1010 1.62 × 1010 2.39 × 109 9.82 × 109
best 100 5.04 × 1010 1,039,624 7.74 × 1010 2,053,288 3.31 × 1010 4.29 × 109 2,748,680 6.37 × 109 1.33 × 1010 1.29 × 1010 9.81 × 1008 9.35 × 109
worst 100 6.05 × 1010 23,107,831 9.67 × 1010 13,489,625 3.87 × 1010 1.09 × 1010 4,780,327 1.21 × 1010 2.64 × 1010 1.94 × 1010 3.19 × 109 1.06 × 1010
C17-F1
std 0 4.79 × 109 10,597,589 9.11 × 109 5,928,769 2.5 × 109 3.37 × 109 903,719.7 2.58 × 109 6.88 × 109 2.85 × 109 1.05 × 109 6.22 × 108
median 100 5.75 × 1010 5,390,919 8.99 × 1010 2,868,796 3.6 × 1010 6.96 × 109 3,916,422 8.44 × 109 1.93 × 1010 1.62 × 1010 2.7 × 109 9.68 × 109
rank 1 12 4 13 3 11 6 2 7 10 9 5 8
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 21 of 54

Table 4. Cont.

KOA WSO AVOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 300 149,583.9 138,352.8 149,030.3 16,943.78 103,002.4 220,840.5 43,670.63 122,679.4 92,792.69 167,990.6 136,635.8 248,646.8
best 300 128,298.8 106,309.5 135,194 14,639.09 90,497.96 166,559 34,628.8 107,779 70,179.53 151,707.6 102,695.6 207,248.4
worst 300 172,029 168,328.7 162,452.7 19,994.51 109,817.3 336,875 54,310.2 137,706 105,874.8 189,799.9 178,041.7 285,707.9
C17-F3
std 0 19,900.14 30,273.96 13,080.54 2598.191 9650.742 86,695.78 8871.025 13,217.26 17,616.45 19,901.6 35,320.14 34,727.35
median 300 149,004 139,386.6 149,237.2 16,570.75 105,847.1 189,964 42,871.76 122,616.4 97,558.22 165,227.4 132,903 250,815.5
rank 1 10 8 9 2 5 12 3 6 4 11 7 13
mean 470.3679 13,956.83 684.8009 22,448.11 527.6775 7871.064 1857.265 557.9105 1381.66 2664.031 2918.089 985.3263 1465.974
best 428.5127 10,846.92 669.6698 14,824.78 492.1734 6310.075 1187.093 521.0501 1032.473 1515.614 2439.486 669.7292 1268.232
worst 525.7252 15,889.86 708.8812 26,809.34 579.9513 10,160.22 2218.682 629.8218 1684.796 4543.687 3103.746 1738.409 1585.165
C17-F4
std 53.57701 2437.601 19.91459 5912.057 44.54252 1758.579 499.2023 53.51063 317.6341 1438.256 346.4791 545.1676 150.7205
median 463.6168 14,545.27 680.3262 24,079.17 519.2927 7506.981 2011.642 540.3851 1404.685 2298.413 3064.563 766.5837 1505.249
rank 1 12 4 13 2 11 8 3 6 9 10 5 7
mean 504.7261 1065.433 837.4285 1092.993 722.7024 1109.837 929.9259 725.1277 712.5915 970.3472 788.6582 772.5602 869.4968
best 503.9798 1034.652 808.7226 1075.198 645.7768 975.5303 891.6619 655.8271 686.7938 930.8254 739.0804 721.1544 841.164
worst 505.9698 1103.502 876.4592 1105.322 783.0094 1217.212 953.6909 831.6686 739.3389 996.3264 823.1554 833.2044 889.5473
C17-F5
std 1.029571 35.75922 31.60248 14.9716 62.21624 126.9977 29.8511 85.07309 30.38572 31.62067 42.82098 49.85016 24.82183
median 504.4773 1061.789 832.2661 1095.727 731.0116 1123.303 937.1754 706.5076 712.1166 977.1185 796.1986 767.941 873.638
rank 1 11 7 12 3 13 9 4 2 10 6 5 8
mean 600 689.4033 656.5336 691.3502 610.6613 684.4566 691.9562 635.373 621.4235 660.3259 654.4208 650.3345 645.6004
best 600 686.586 652.0101 689.2108 608.0459 665.3258 686.9105 625.7742 616.0881 648.3769 649.8097 648.1898 633.4675
worst 600 694.0688 661.6627 694.1036 614.1181 700.135 699.6824 657.9483 630.6965 668.465 657.1603 653.6786 657.4692
C17-F6
std 0 3.733946 4.819692 2.475418 2.810919 16.71551 5.995706 16.56411 7.084689 9.290449 3.495826 2.681362 10.85583
median 600 688.4793 656.2309 691.0432 610.2406 686.1829 690.6159 628.8848 619.4548 662.2308 655.3566 649.7347 645.7324
rank 1 11 8 12 2 10 13 4 3 9 7 6 5
mean 756.7298 1731.165 1612.083 1825.017 1012.626 1627.768 1651.629 1036.242 1047.359 1435.796 1372.132 1173.181 1274.479
best 754.7543 1707.594 1545.095 1748.785 959.0639 1484.474 1592.429 1000.577 1025.438 1316.109 1213.45 1022.934 1200.637
worst 758.3522 1761.078 1674.633 1922.444 1057.935 1768.548 1733.263 1064.965 1065.255 1493.97 1493.801 1392.142 1322.701
C17-F7
std 1.678837 24.06938 59.46511 80.53832 51.74499 143.179 71.00264 29.43994 20.11823 87.36261 136.5406 172.2738 58.16152
median 756.9065 1727.993 1614.302 1814.419 1016.753 1629.026 1640.413 1039.713 1049.372 1466.552 1390.637 1138.824 1287.289
rank 1 12 9 13 2 10 11 3 4 8 7 5 6
mean 805.721 1383.747 1105.554 1409.746 998.4823 1400.121 1294.188 1009.222 1020.516 1291.782 1120.587 1041.767 1231.146
best 802.9849 1329.89 1061.81 1379.857 969.3698 1306.445 1168.316 971.7921 987.8738 1238.631 1112.55 1001.552 1191.784
worst 810.9445 1425.038 1150.513 1430.397 1028.234 1526.639 1397.851 1076.128 1056.699 1344.626 1134.428 1103.928 1253.498
C17-F8
std 3.864789 46.39957 54.21158 23.03374 33.11967 102.6223 102.3809 49.57683 33.2358 47.41642 10.58349 52.43473 29.22653
median 804.4773 1390.03 1104.946 1414.365 998.1629 1383.7 1305.294 994.4836 1018.745 1291.936 1117.686 1030.794 1239.651
rank 1 11 6 13 2 12 10 3 4 9 7 5 8
mean 900 34,017.31 12,532.18 34,198.38 3177.381 35,681.16 31,068.86 18,528.59 6510.378 22,640.43 10,076.76 9719.426 12,073.9
best 900 32,673.96 11,946.23 32,133.22 2002.422 32,892.84 28,919.61 9937.486 5666.427 17447.6 9185.167 9007.899 9942.128
worst 900 37,146.23 13,346.71 35,882.85 4583.441 39,793.84 36,333.24 24,489.87 7408.203 26,631.57 10,878.18 11,039.89 13,899.21
C17-F9
std 1 × 10−13 2290.983 654.6614 1919.083 1152.366 3213.01 3805.245 7397.037 977.6157 4122.296 760.6097 987.5776 2266.459
median 900 33,124.53 12,417.9 34,388.73 3061.83 35,018.98 29511.3 19,843.5 6483.442 23,241.29 10,121.84 9414.956 12,227.13
rank 1 11 7 12 2 13 10 8 3 9 5 4 6
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 22 of 54

Table 4. Cont.

KOA WSO AVOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 4347.157 12,501.61 8106.923 13,649.47 6421.64 11,350.83 11,358.13 7480.766 8426.742 13,449.81 8363.771 7602.505 11,284.14
best 3555.132 11,986.21 7592.666 13,341.92 5583.099 10,422.06 10,135.81 6201.663 6491.304 12,737.64 7552.501 7404.352 10,755.79
worst 5099.795 13,238.04 8574.312 14,051.99 7036.682 12,391.52 12,472.96 8513.43 13,314.41 13,992.03 9435.288 8097.764 11,957.84
C17-F10
std 696.8528 648.0204 444.9295 348.1376 748.2319 920.4325 1107.857 1070.697 3548.154 691.959 849.0965 357.7925 557.7497
median 4366.851 12,391.09 8130.356 13,601.99 6533.389 11,294.87 11,411.87 7603.986 6950.626 13,534.78 8233.648 7453.953 11,211.46
rank 1 11 5 13 2 9 10 3 7 12 6 4 8
mean 1128.435 14,581.89 1578.784 19,859.3 1248.085 12,260.21 4870.902 1544.047 5845.583 4885.891 13455.6 1641.182 22712
best 1121.25 13,439.55 1465.724 17,672.52 1202.111 10,546.11 4299.987 1401.329 3534.593 4585.473 12623.46 1383.954 13,300.14
worst 1133.132 15,307.05 1722.936 21,518.66 1277.336 14,706.61 6080.301 1688.152 10,104.49 5431.524 15242.9 1948.663 30,437.42
C17-F11
std 5.882766 892.6061 128.4513 1736.908 36.19834 1938.428 884.7653 134.8492 3279.846 420.9414 1301.835 261.2576 7660.041
median 1129.678 14,790.49 1563.238 20,123.01 1256.447 11,894.07 4551.66 1543.353 4871.626 4763.284 12978.01 1616.056 23,555.22
rank 1 11 4 12 2 9 6 3 8 7 10 5 13
mean 2905.102 4.12 × 1010 69,333,380 6.72 × 1010 13,605,050 2.44 × 1010 1.25 × 109 74,845,249 9.05 × 108 4.77 × 109 2.05 × 109 1.52 × 109 1.93 × 108
best 2527.376 3.46 × 1010 29,368,335 4.9 × 1010 12,815,734 1.03 × 1010 1.03 × 109 40,312,005 1.42 × 108 2.69 × 109 6.75 × 108 11,998,079 60,941,738
worst 3168.37 4.94 × 1010 1.07 × 108 9.22 × 1010 14,242,998 4.11 × 1010 1.7 × 109 1.19 × 108 1.68 × 109 9.39 × 109 3.69 × 109 4.38 × 109 2.67 × 108
C17-F12 std 295.8235 7.22 × 109 45,023,338 2.15 × 1010 720,098.7 1.38 × 1010 3.32 × 108 35,795,915 8.3 × 108 3.39 × 109 1.35 × 109 2.2 × 109 98012316
median 2962.331 4.04 × 1010 70,415,577 6.39 × 1010 13,680,735 2.32 × 1010 1.13 × 109 69,985,918 8.98 × 108 3.51 × 109 1.92 × 109 8.35 × 108 2.22 × 108
rank 1 12 3 13 2 11 7 4 6 10 9 8 5
mean 1340.1 2.32 × 1010 140,897.8 4.07 × 1010 15,504.05 9.53 × 109 89,692,261 228,031.4 3.38 × 108 5.53 × 108 17,510,759 4.51 × 108 39,233,118
best 1333.781 1.34 × 1010 32,451.57 2.06 × 1010 8237.933 5.06 × 109 67,431,253 142,302.5 1.53 × 108 4.51 × 108 29,576.44 482,13.45 25,574,069
worst 1343.015 3.17 × 1010 310,391.5 5.86 × 1010 18,238.2 1.48 × 1010 1.02 × 108 355,794.9 8.49 × 108 7.56 × 108 59,025,621 1.14 × 109 52,436,717
C17-F13 std 4.628289 8.68 × 109 128,454.8 1.72 × 1010 5240.914 4.47 × 109 16,449,744 98,176.65 3.69 × 108 1.49 × 108 30,426,143 6 × 108 12,965,594
median 1341.801 2.39 × 1010 110,374.1 4.19 × 1010 17,770.04 9.11 × 109 94,744,815 207,014.2 1.74 × 108 5.03 × 108 5,493,918 3.33 × 108 39,460,843
rank 1 12 3 13 2 11 7 4 8 10 5 9 6
mean 1429.458 24,547,842 1,156,499 45,767,518 1555.593 2,541,057 4,508,830 180,566.8 1,089,071 818,521.1 14,325,101 542,813 10,601,656
best 1425.995 8,018,287 358,272.2 14,037,026 1542.966 671,287.8 3,991,939 114,408 84,867 674,927.6 3,247,926 195,033.9 5,216,894
worst 1431.939 48,055,805 2,754,473 92,664,890 1578.888 4,030,294 5,358,038 350,420 2,101,517 944,373.3 23,520,465 869,340.2 18,246,361
C17-F14
std 2.833096 18,261,458 1,177,220 36,148,276 17.75996 1,505,301 637,596.4 122,802.9 889,843.5 151,902 9,933,238 298,267.8 5,945,636
median 1429.95 21,058,639 756,625.2 38,184,079 1550.258 2,731,324 4,342,672 128,719.6 1,084,951 827,391.7 15,266,006 553,439 9,471,685
rank 1 12 7 13 2 8 9 3 6 5 11 4 10
mean 1530.66 2.46 × 109 36,017.3 3.96 × 109 2221.151 1.61 × 109 9,383,591 114,874.9 5,626,635 66,737,994 1.87 × 108 10,348.77 8,110,945
best 1526.359 1.74 × 109 22,265.22 3.09 × 109 2095.201 5.54 × 108 864,975.3 47,605.91 40,115.14 39,133,444 18,196.86 2707.533 2,756,255
worst 1532.953 3.23 × 109 66,256.73 4.69 × 109 2360.307 3.51 × 109 17,520,860 171,303.9 14,819,639 86,871,947 7.25 × 108 20,257.53 17,603,160
C17-F15
std 3.171095 7.54 × 108 22,039.2 7.66 × 108 151.7346 1.48 × 109 7,912,741 59,427.02 6,970,083 21,577,152 3.88 × 108 8430.859 7,096,598
median 1531.664 2.44 × 109 27,773.62 4.02 × 109 2214.548 1.19 × 109 9,574,265 120,294.8 3,823,394 70,473,293 11,294,126 92,15.01 6,042,184
rank 1 12 4 13 2 11 8 5 6 9 10 3 7
mean 2062.891 6055.705 4230.866 7286.688 2715.947 4502.88 5307.482 3259.66 3256.914 4410.308 3853.938 3272.332 3814.265
best 1728.6 5263.506 3906.274 5485.973 2565.283 3956.823 4366.29 3042.062 2885.687 4023.354 3533.835 2884.743 3220.098
worst 2242.663 7712.695 4629.947 10,846.63 2972.475 4797.383 5941.226 3497.433 3815.358 4684.977 4243.311 3702.034 4321.48
C17-F16
std 251.732 1242.726 370.6909 2648.976 207.9269 410.7924 747.5385 203.9334 487.8471 301.2195 372.8875 442.5776 518.7537
median 2140.15 5623.309 4193.621 6407.076 2663.014 4628.656 5461.206 3249.573 3163.305 4466.451 3819.303 3251.275 3857.742
rank 1 12 8 13 2 10 11 4 3 9 7 5 6
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 23 of 54

Table 4. Cont.

KOA WSO AVOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 2021.151 7318.249 3475.427 10565.46 2529.709 3852.955 4398.159 3013.855 2917.177 4034.141 3723.2 3279.233 3500.279
best 1900.43 5587.931 3048.898 7733.522 2457.896 3105.043 3948.283 2486.807 2773.782 3424.845 3287.92 3067.102 3274.936
worst 2138.267 8946.153 3980.719 13693.19 2586.617 4291.887 4614.205 3479.429 3181.295 4400.552 4018.469 3599.306 3731.108
C17-F17
std 145.0735 1495.612 477.3995 2652.838 59.50525 559.1043 336.93 443.0295 195.5701 466.1732 342.289 271.9751 230.6331
median 2022.954 7369.456 3436.045 10417.56 2537.161 4007.445 4515.074 3044.593 2856.815 4155.583 3793.205 3225.261 3497.537
rank 1 12 6 13 2 9 11 4 3 10 8 5 7
mean 1830.62 71,644,933 2,282,053 1.06 × 108 24,933.8 33,174,787 42,757,812 2,499,198 5,417,447 7,761,805 7,959,184 780,149.2 8,964,267
best 1822.239 57,331,012 295,708.8 47,785,454 3639.966 2,982,075 11,579,835 1,472,444 1,032,978 5,338,148 3,763,256 332,571.7 3,212,137
worst 1841.673 84,482,938 4,179,812 1.47 × 108 37,239.95 94,779,822 77,398,257 3,890,401 10,806,504 10,789,188 14,873,844 1,279,249 21,549,980
C17-F18 std 8.802698 12,676,296 2,127,114 52,960,169 15,864.59 45,596,982 35,182,593 1,250,349 5,511,839 2,492,407 5,474,104 469,263.6 9,154,274
median 1829.285 72,382,892 2,326,346 1.15 × 108 29,427.64 17,468,625 41,026,578 2,316,973 4,915,153 7,459,941 6,599,817 754,387.7 5,547,476
rank 1 12 4 13 2 10 11 5 6 7 8 3 9
mean 1925.185 2.58 × 109 245,908.8 3.63 × 109 2073.532 2.53 × 109 6,475,385 4,850,397 1,100,770 47,980,587 427,886.7 372,637.8 938,716.6
best 1924.437 1.23 × 109 86,374.43 2.45 × 109 2015.54 9254734 974,023.2 3,692,101 538,842.2 40,733,792 246,096.2 2846.643 734,316.2
worst 1926.121 4.3 × 109 507,060.7 4.5 × 109 2102.175 7.39 × 109 15,261,932 6,015,265 1,692,437 60,929,130 937,548.3 930,588.7 1,271,577
C17-F19
std 0.855282 1.4 × 109 197,321.6 9.82 × 108 42.77584 3.57 × 109 6,635,893 1,025,132 521,283.7 9,716,370 367,361.1 478,110 274,030
median 1925.091 2.39 × 109 195,100.1 3.8 × 109 2088.206 1.36 × 109 4,832,792 4,847,111 1,085,900 45,129,714 263,951.2 278,557.9 874,486.6
rank 1 12 3 13 2 11 9 8 7 10 5 4 6
mean 2160.172 3739.708 3206.236 3993.273 2632.62 3366.622 3665.426 3219.449 2598.753 3689.507 3941.403 3228.136 3113.444
best 2104.423 3417.755 2647.545 3723.93 2361.815 2932.995 3379.457 2994.244 2404.456 3567.919 3676.154 2839.06 3047.135
worst 2323.891 3908.591 3710.536 4160.335 2899.03 3574.769 4219.373 3661.5 2802.626 3850.492 4204.9 3393.829 3232.907
C17-F20
std 117.9742 242.6596 492.3778 203.6536 245.8431 317.2803 414.1949 330.2313 222.9824 131.9757 234.3118 282.0011 89.87337
median 2106.186 3816.244 3233.432 4044.414 2634.817 3479.362 3531.436 3111.026 2593.965 3669.808 3942.28 3339.828 3086.866
rank 1 11 5 13 3 8 9 6 2 10 12 7 4
mean 2314.895 2958.552 2733.348 2995.17 2442.254 2925.395 2916.744 2560.302 2510.584 2796.451 2815.649 2641.299 2727.929
best 2309.045 2923.947 2617.377 2895.165 2423.487 2823.876 2807.691 2526.766 2458.473 2773.337 2747.894 2572.718 2705.321
worst 2329.683 2992.548 2912.56 3077.266 2465.361 3086.454 3007.585 2595.961 2551.222 2838.569 2852.73 2743.557 2745.95
C17-F21
std 10.6856 36.84403 137.6229 93.90139 23.25965 122.2094 92.7019 38.81585 42.5424 32.71981 51.42597 81.54098 21.65185
median 2310.426 2958.857 2701.727 3004.125 2440.085 2895.624 2925.85 2559.24 2516.321 2786.948 2830.986 2624.459 2730.223
rank 1 12 7 13 2 11 10 4 3 8 9 5 6
mean 3095.169 14,381.28 10,735.22 15,586.33 5238.992 13,204.05 13,134.48 8696.273 8577.841 15,062.48 11,011.68 9417.496 8539.763
best 2300 14,075.99 8477.805 15,337.64 2319.192 12,757.95 12,515.38 6902.035 7540.137 14,564.9 10,682.75 8607.223 3940.882
worst 5480.678 14,614.08 12,338.27 15,901.64 8225.291 13,754.75 13,440.31 9900.313 9093.964 15,587.42 11,455.85 9873.749 13,014.37
C17-F22
std 1718.838 252.9608 1986.881 297.0998 3431.247 461.0354 459.4987 1378.681 763.6749 524.5437 354.9343 643.2589 5437.789
median 2300 14,417.51 11,062.41 15,553.02 5205.742 13,151.75 13,291.11 8991.372 8838.632 15,048.8 10,954.06 9594.506 8601.899
rank 1 11 7 13 2 10 9 5 4 12 8 6 3
mean 2743.354 3773.165 3267.399 3845.773 2883.332 3699.586 3702.012 2978.122 3007.731 3257.733 4667.345 3349.089 3335.195
best 2729.988 3697.11 3186.145 3800.165 2870.86 3497.727 3526.302 2937.802 2930.594 3172.86 4480.352 3284.399 3209.871
worst 2752.657 3867.238 3345.548 3885.063 2902.648 4024.291 3799.342 3048.593 3141.995 3323.727 4832.166 3404.779 3468.512
C17-F23
std 10.82585 80.48427 81.78723 38.4172 14.81681 271.1811 131.9987 56.41876 99.99404 67.63572 155.9564 69.12909 114.4869
median 2745.387 3764.156 3268.952 3848.932 2879.909 3638.163 3741.202 2963.047 2979.168 3267.174 4678.432 3353.588 3331.199
rank 1 11 6 12 2 9 10 3 4 5 13 8 7
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 24 of 54

Table 4. Cont.

KOA WSO AVOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 2919.043 4158.336 3489.092 4422.753 3059.509 3961.155 3793.065 3126.536 3187.581 3426.834 4322.995 3441.03 3634.107
best 2909.046 3912.993 3382.367 3954.227 3030.994 3868.606 3686.068 3089.738 3092.641 3352.168 4289.373 3286.781 3595.241
worst 2924.412 4706.895 3667.655 5570.329 3096.139 4095.636 3844.358 3160.497 3312.122 3483.627 4373.877 3591.621 3729.153
C17-F24
std 7.375459 398.7304 133.6558 835.2546 31.62752 112.601 79.15459 33.14311 98.95744 66.27591 42.52424 146.7457 68.72469
median 2921.358 4006.728 3453.172 4083.228 3055.451 3940.189 3820.917 3127.955 3172.78 3435.77 4314.364 3442.86 3606.016
rank 1 11 7 13 2 10 9 3 4 5 12 6 8
mean 2983.145 8358.473 3169.846 11550.19 3064.409 5875.926 4102.998 3051.876 3987.845 4312.736 4220.542 3115.534 4001.888
best 2980.235 6904.775 3142.826 9298.866 3044.6 4799.928 3711.576 3018.797 3799.736 3847.277 3887.124 3072.536 3898.905
worst 2991.831 9278.402 3214.139 12932.72 3082.091 6899.094 4398.395 3070.37 4183.116 4880.249 4852.507 3162.809 4119.426
C17-F25
std 6.258337 1137.135 33.26204 1845.364 16.73698 975.136 315.7771 25.35295 215.8708 563.6518 490.7048 49.57299 98.33715
median 2980.257 8625.356 3161.209 11984.59 3065.473 5902.342 4151.01 3059.169 3984.264 4261.709 4071.269 3113.396 3994.61
rank 1 12 5 13 3 11 8 2 6 10 9 4 7
mean 3776.432 13,660.32 10,678.55 14,603.91 3346.367 12,259.93 13,401.96 5707.421 6402.076 9477.971 11,225.99 7944.296 8773.46
best 3748.807 13,432.6 10,187.45 14,009.68 3152.363 10,228.86 12,511.53 5236.83 6026.365 8701.664 10,888.84 7391.57 6977.404
worst 3793.643 13,844.31 11,170.63 15,517.04 3624.726 13,476.25 15,057.43 5962.706 6754.967 10,201.56 11,612.76 8484.606 11,098.61
C17-F26
std 21.02196 205.2241 434.607 707.3723 231.469 1523.052 1220.589 355.1918 410.8507 679.9345 326.2241 529.5801 2118.333
median 3781.639 13,682.2 10,678.05 14,444.45 3304.189 12,667.3 13,019.43 5815.074 6413.485 9504.333 11,201.18 7950.503 8508.914
rank 2 12 8 13 1 10 11 3 4 7 9 5 6
mean 3251.26 4734.4 3825.496 4915.84 3378.218 4648.455 4409.715 3357.69 3624.023 3806.748 7887.712 3629.276 4394.857
best 3227.701 4428.353 3780.013 4554.826 3273.743 3963.317 3857.547 3318.37 3579.701 3620.846 7642.785 3375.58 4287.832
worst 3313.631 4943.81 3887.409 5174.739 3474.196 5125.306 4961.724 3424.965 3671.332 3970.743 8232.623 3865.274 4534.067
C17-F27
std 45.07966 245.282 53.15123 319.8348 88.96046 546.2171 561.1654 50.84626 51.51511 168.3518 307.5623 239.8878 112.9655
median 3231.854 4782.718 3817.282 4966.898 3382.467 4752.599 4409.794 3343.713 3622.53 3817.701 7837.719 3638.124 4378.764
rank 1 11 7 12 3 10 9 2 4 6 13 5 8
mean 3258.849 8498.986 3579.443 10,843.58 3348.462 7086.436 4756.321 3284.876 4355.288 5165.78 4984.769 3846.733 4965.869
best 3258.849 7680.203 3500.359 9615.557 3313.193 5764.138 4172.184 3263.878 4095.464 4569.582 4926.445 3541.393 4722.747
worst 3258.849 10,568.39 3665.74 14105.18 3391.773 8447.196 4979.887 3303.061 4681.937 5690.371 5099.843 4341.775 5145.847
C17-F28
std 0 1503.213 88.19974 2354.415 41.65681 1470.184 422.2117 20.76792 295.661 497.7929 85.16528 374.3908 221.6401
median 3258.849 7873.678 3575.837 9826.799 3344.442 7067.205 4936.606 3286.283 4321.875 5201.584 4956.394 3751.881 4997.441
rank 1 12 4 13 3 11 7 2 6 10 9 5 8
mean 3263.038 13193.72 5410.664 18815.8 4060.692 6750.47 8803.392 4773.422 4809.39 6400.658 7974.326 4776.587 6030.774
best 3247.132 8747.727 5271.406 10,011.71 3718.13 6321.401 5975.384 4344.624 4611.737 5532.581 6592.523 4554.931 5732.968
worst 3278.787 18,067.57 5545.833 29,679.85 4295.145 7256.817 11,494.21 5348.985 5097.581 7352.586 10,413.84 4859.451 6612.477
C17-F29
std 18.86722 4636.255 121.2592 9468.58 282.1155 419.2955 2456.69 454.5769 240.968 931.8459 1860.347 159.8595 445.044
median 3263.116 12,979.79 5412.707 17,785.82 4114.748 6711.83 8871.987 4700.039 4764.122 6358.733 7445.468 4845.984 5888.826
rank 1 12 6 13 2 9 11 3 5 8 10 4 7
mean 623,575.2 3.1 × 109 20,745,165 5.2 × 109 1,604,261 1.57 × 109 1.5 × 108 66,811,920 1.32 × 108 2.85 × 108 1.75 × 108 4,592,435 55,400,197
best 582,411.6 2.4 × 109 12,686,412 3.19 × 109 1,222,345 1.93 × 108 1.02 × 108 60,379,936 63,953,348 1.98 × 108 1.34 × 108 3,217,030 44,705,905
worst 655,637.4 4.21 × 109 28,422,580 8.17 × 109 2,594,292 3.19 × 109 2.07 × 108 76,849,184 1.96 × 108 3.6 × 108 2.29 × 108 6,374,175 77,753,600
C17-F30 std 35,305.29 8.56 × 108 8,355,125 2.32 × 109 716,597.8 1.67 × 109 57,361,836 7,724,811 72,107,272 73395175 43188598 1,687,509 16,536,183
median 628,125.9 2.9 × 109 20,935,834 4.73 × 109 1,300,204 1.45 × 109 1.46 × 108 65,009,280 1.34 × 108 2.9 × 108 1.68 × 108 4,389,268 49,570,641
rank 1 12 4 13 2 11 8 6 7 10 9 3 5
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 25 of 54

Table 4. Cont.

KOA WSO AVOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
Sum rank 30 335 166 367 63 294 269 112 144 248 254 150 207
Mean rank 1.03 11.6 5.72 12.7 2.17 10.1 9.28 3.86 4.97 8.55 8.76 5.17 7.14
Total rank 1 12 6 13 2 11 10 3 4 8 9 5 7

Table 5. Optimization results of CEC 2017 test suite (dimension = 100).

KOA WSO AVOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 100 1.58 × 1011 3.62 × 109 2.2 × 1011 4.92 × 108 1.19 × 1011 5.93 × 1010 62,253,430 5.4 × 1010 8.63 × 1010 1.29 × 1011 1.9 × 1010 5.31 × 1010
best 100 1.54 × 1011 1.76 × 109 2.17 × 1011 3.72 × 108 1.05 × 1011 5.61 × 1010 51,873,540 4.68 × 1010 8.21 × 1010 1.19 × 1011 1.28 × 1010 5.02 × 1010
worst 100 1.62 × 1011 5.21 × 109 2.22 × 1011 6.21 × 108 1.33 × 1011 6.64 × 1010 72,902,555 6.12 × 1010 9.51 × 1010 1.38 × 1011 2.58 × 1010 6 × 1010
C17-F1 std 1.25 × 10−14 3.49 × 109 1.53 × 109 2.74 × 109 1.3 × 108 1.27 × 1010 5.16 × 109 11,099,561 7.35 × 109 6.46 × 109 8.88 × 109 7.73 × 109 5.01 × 109
median 100 1.58 × 1011 3.76 × 109 2.21 × 1011 4.87 × 108 1.19 × 1011 5.74 × 1010 62,118,813 5.41 × 1010 8.4 × 1010 1.3 × 1011 1.86 × 1010 5.1 × 1010
rank 1 12 4 13 3 10 8 2 7 9 11 5 6
mean 300 404,928 308,705.2 305,078.4 149,288.1 343,809.3 746,230.4 440,732.8 348,188.2 280,055.7 324,723.4 511,448.9 545,904.9
best 300 368,992.5 301,489 294,284.2 114,279.6 275,513.4 653,126.4 366,098.8 318,613.1 262,693.3 300,559.7 387,456.7 523,506.8
C17-F3 worst 300 423,506.9 315,620.7 311,426.4 180,638.3 392,636.1 864,185.5 527,615.9 381,299.2 296,333.9 355,410.5 717,963.1 563,654.1
std 0 27,550.87 6455.142 8675.46 31,154.28 53,608.71 98,334.04 88,879.94 36,246.4 14,858.87 24,599.61 165,406 19,163.79
median 300 413,606.4 308,855.5 307,301.5 151,117.3 353,543.8 733,804.8 434,608.2 346,420.3 280,597.9 321,461.8 470,188 548,229.4
rank 1 9 5 4 2 7 13 10 8 3 6 11 12
mean 602.1722 42,138.29 1502.374 71,028.99 995.9106 15,163.2 10374.2 751.7312 4255.296 10,185.59 32,273.01 2370.108 8733.789
best 592.0676 38,782.36 1266.555 64,387.23 889.1278 9932.833 8841.988 699.3299 3275.684 9707.125 25,669.07 1446.025 8255.076
worst 612.2769 46,196.97 1651.894 79,138.29 1106.866 20,151.17 11,387.64 808.4239 6380.153 11,011.91 36,518.9 2982.036 9277.937
C17-F4
std 12.61058 3445.179 189.1307 6610.851 113.7622 4563.887 1170.386 49.21291 1545.055 670.7662 5662.855 715.5603 514.181
median 602.1722 41,786.92 1545.524 70,295.22 993.8243 15284.4 10,633.58 749.5855 3682.673 10,011.66 33,452.04 2526.186 8701.071
rank 1 12 4 13 3 10 9 2 6 8 11 5 7
mean 512.9345 1875.442 1245.443 1846.994 1162.661 2018.132 1732.529 1172.417 1123.255 1765.013 1265.907 1338.14 1494.762
best 510.9445 1857.699 1234.193 1813.979 1044 1994.674 1641.963 1070.597 1070.278 1739.553 1234.13 1245.053 1358.062
C17-F5 worst 514.9244 1886.314 1254.082 1879.377 1242.711 2045.421 1874.127 1237.929 1168.535 1792.377 1295.293 1499.148 1576.841
std 1.963315 13.38656 9.021254 35.65558 103.5764 25.30619 108.9261 81.39582 46.37727 23.34161 34.43228 128.972 106.3335
median 512.9345 1878.878 1246.749 1847.309 1181.966 2016.216 1707.014 1190.572 1127.102 1764.06 1267.103 1304.179 1522.073
rank 1 12 5 11 3 13 9 4 2 10 6 7 8
mean 600 697.8946 656.8698 696.2964 634.3171 702.0988 695.5838 668.6175 636.9566 674.7253 658.8237 656.4638 657.9726
best 600 695.399 653.1221 691.7436 630.7892 690.7201 686.5543 662.3883 632.3377 666.5929 656.4249 649.8042 651.1735
worst 600 700.2302 660.7982 698.9958 640.2906 709.9386 711.556 674.4143 642.7928 679.6217 662.7141 661.8933 663.1022
C17-F6
std 0 2.356801 3.419722 3.464414 4.86788 10.02518 12.12875 5.583037 4.901089 6.734223 2.998644 6.206345 6.49099
median 600 697.9746 656.7795 697.2231 633.0944 703.8682 692.1125 668.8336 636.3479 676.3432 658.0778 657.0789 658.8074
rank 1 12 5 11 2 13 10 8 3 9 7 4 6
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 26 of 54

Table 5. Cont.

KOA WSO AVOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 811.392 3384.456 2895.673 3491.538 1755.078 3223.741 3357.825 1906.897 1921.165 2910.907 2934.314 2338.869 2429.204
best 810.0205 3303.584 2747.83 3407.135 1700.904 3057.858 3245.78 1756.368 1745.893 2776.807 2812.989 2091.564 2336.126
worst 813.1726 3479.205 3019.769 3563.237 1830.313 3380.477 3520.905 2021.001 2050.532 3021.071 3135.055 2449.042 2632.894
C17-F7
std 1.579207 77.97248 146.985 72.46239 60.45772 157.4048 136.5337 119.0395 137.7656 109.0443 151.8379 183.0957 148.6763
median 811.1874 3377.518 2907.546 3497.891 1744.548 3228.315 3332.307 1925.109 1944.117 2922.875 2894.607 2407.434 2373.898
rank 1 12 7 13 2 10 11 3 4 8 9 5 6
mean 812.437 2286.799 1659.732 2337.135 1378.597 2265.896 2192.315 1400.374 1456.862 2132.372 1740.834 1630.792 1929.733
best 808.9546 2239.937 1608.077 2314.305 1220.571 2202.749 2006.981 1259.576 1359.291 2072.598 1664.978 1592.233 1882.246
worst 816.9143 2342.537 1685.519 2351.528 1476.704 2346.692 2334.862 1568.602 1586.323 2181.048 1861.416 1718.649 1977.445
C17-F8
std 3.673025 47.51148 38.48614 17.31721 121.5195 74.94211 181.4813 137.8975 110.5319 50.88975 94.97685 63.7038 43.93465
median 811.9395 2282.361 1672.667 2341.353 1408.557 2257.071 2213.708 1386.66 1440.917 2137.922 1718.471 1606.142 1929.621
rank 1 12 6 13 2 11 10 3 4 9 7 5 8
mean 900 82,357.33 24,238.04 70,609.31 20534.9 110,065.6 70,164.92 54,136.77 32,881.11 68,027.74 21,571.53 30,064.46 42,041.39
best 900 73,524.29 20,181.86 68,255.4 19,115.08 90,235.06 54,566.97 45,653.35 20,357.27 65,153.88 20,080.31 25,427.36 38,078.22
worst 900 95,138.23 27,278.31 72,536.97 21,177.59 137,283.4 88,423.61 61,570.09 44,704.04 69,555.68 22,726.29 33,483.09 47,354.09
C17-F9
std 1 × 10−13 10,079.51 3196.155 2016.478 1031.208 21,350.02 18,271.2 7083.24 12,846.03 2171.179 1195.911 3871.169 4210.184
median 900 80,383.4 24,746.01 70,822.43 20,923.46 106,372.1 68,834.55 54,661.83 33,231.56 68,700.7 21,739.76 30673.7 41,366.63
rank 1 12 4 11 2 13 10 8 6 9 3 5 7
mean 11,023.04 28,764.18 15,559.65 29,986.93 13,634.91 27,925.44 26,965.42 16,501.04 14,842.15 29,995.83 16,716.58 16,576.16 24,908.94
best 9625.608 28,501.48 13,149.25 29,169.72 12,988.72 27,288.18 26,175.72 15,914.27 13,748.85 28,785.02 15,044.3 14,929.99 24,375.93
worst 11,858.81 29,077.7 17,675.53 30,462.85 14,449.59 28,802.58 28,299.11 17,067.07 15,395.76 31,002.21 17,671.53 17718.83 25,453.71
C17-F10
std 1047.15 280.1557 2147.914 640.6182 673.5145 744.1283 1034.361 532.7258 812.0447 1002.222 1299.163 1274.408 476.2344
median 11,303.87 28,738.77 15,706.92 30,157.57 13,550.67 27,805.5 26,693.43 16,511.41 15,112 30,098.05 17,075.24 16,827.92 24,903.06
rank 1 11 4 12 2 10 9 5 3 13 7 6 8
mean 1162.329 152,618.7 59,526.88 191,511 4526.662 60,681.68 193,293.4 4339.101 80,911.4 66,616.12 160,253.9 48,336.21 129,219.1
best 1139.568 118,460.4 53,490.28 146,528.4 3580.408 27,691.6 112,503.9 3785.463 67,217 56,196.42 133,547.3 22,017.74 98,621.27
worst 1220.662 177,615.2 71,119.92 272,854.4 5398.409 86,791.06 311,624.6 4595.548 91,165.53 84,913.49 186,954.5 98,740.3 178,142.1
C17-F11
std 42.18991 27,488.35 8816.241 61,513.04 845.6541 26,477.2 100,114.6 403.6663 11,075.45 13,609.17 23,840.8 37,083.83 37,651.49
median 1144.542 157,199.6 56,748.65 173,330.6 4563.915 64,122.04 174,522.6 4487.696 82631.53 62,677.29 160,256.9 36,293.39 120,056.5
rank 1 10 5 12 3 6 13 2 8 7 11 4 9
mean 5974.805 9.79 × 1010 6.11 × 108 1.59 × 1011 2.42 × 108 5.27 × 1010 1.22 × 1010 3.08 × 108 1.06 × 1010 2.03 × 1010 6.2 × 1010 9.36 × 109 1.14 × 1010
best 5383.905 6.95 × 1010 3.24 × 108 1.19 × 1011 1.35 × 108 2.7 × 1010 9.93 × 109 1.96 × 108 7.35 × 109 1.6 × 1010 5.37 × 1010 1.22 × 109 1.04 × 1010
worst 6570.199 1.09 × 1011 9.75 × 108 1.85 × 1011 2.9 × 108 8.74 × 1010 1.4 × 1010 4.84 × 108 1.26 × 1010 2.8 × 1010 7.29 × 1010 1.78 × 1010 1.35 × 1010
C17-F12 std 534.4265 2.05 × 1010 3.04 × 108 3.27 × 1010 77639019 2.73 × 1010 1.84 × 109 1.37 × 108 2.46 × 109 5.95 × 109 8.62 × 109 8.16 × 109 1.52 × 109
median 5972.559 1.06 × 1011 5.72 × 108 1.66 × 1011 2.71 × 108 4.82 × 1010 1.25 × 1010 2.77 × 108 1.12 × 1010 1.87 × 1010 6.06 × 1010 9.22 × 109 1.09 × 1010
rank 1 12 4 13 2 10 8 3 6 9 11 5 7
mean 1407.28 2.58 × 1010 91,256.28 3.96 × 1010 90,004.15 1.98 × 1010 4.85 × 108 328,704.5 8.79 × 108 2.61 × 109 8.1 × 109 1.64 × 109 1.62 × 108
best 1371.145 2.25 × 1010 64,482.87 3.06 × 1010 38,600.78 1.41 × 1010 3.45 × 108 289,666.1 75804760 1.81 × 109 4.98 × 109 1.8 × 108 1.27 × 108
worst 1439.935 2.87 × 1010 124,386.1 4.49 × 1010 223,420.4 2.37 × 1010 6.56 × 108 383,212.3 2.32 × 109 3.16 × 109 1.04 × 1010 2.96 × 109 1.95 × 108
C17-F13
std 37.55799 3.47 × 109 27,453.11 7.12 × 109 96,700.25 4.42 × 109 1.73 × 108 44,258.34 1.12 × 109 6.68 × 108 2.45 × 109 1.48 × 109 38092155
median 1409.02 2.61 × 1010 88,078.07 4.15 × 1010 48,997.69 2.07 × 1010 4.7 × 108 320,969.8 5.58 × 108 2.74 × 109 8.51 × 109 1.7 × 109 1.63 × 108
rank 1 12 3 13 2 11 6 4 7 9 10 8 5
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 27 of 54

Table 5. Cont.

KOA WSO AVOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 1467.509 42,216,311 6,204,107 74,060,256 84,566.61 8,269,863 13,526,119 2,820,503 8,941,375 12,930,337 10,688,997 757,803.5 9,764,305
best 1458.803 36,457,596 3,762,266 67,546,820 24,206.95 3,756,391 7,786,344 851,265 5,655,602 9,633,942 8,238,887 360,174.1 5,463,372
worst 1472.733 48,225,605 10,299,057 81,072,680 179,579.5 16,135,326 18,489,581 3,882,368 13,404,428 16,523,669 16,030,636 1,573,345 14,383,968
C17-F14
std 6.533884 5,586,786 3,112,254 7,022,252 75,198.33 5,894,917 4,756,293 1,460,448 3,671,034 3,893,637 3,892,590 596,855.2 4,013,341
median 1469.25 42,091,021 5,377,553 73,810,762 67,240.01 6,593,868 13,914,276 3,274,190 8,352,736 12,781,869 9,243,232 548,847.3 9,604,939
rank 1 12 5 13 2 6 11 4 7 10 9 3 8
mean 1609.893 1.43 × 1010 78,513.4 2.19 × 1010 52,157.64 1.12 × 1010 65,169,852 117,705.4 4.66 × 108 1.11 × 109 1.15 × 109 3.1 × 108 11,796,816
best 1551.154 1.32 × 1010 64,221.08 1.56 × 1010 15,118.62 2.33 × 108 36,296,713 80,566.26 3,057,2171 3.7 × 108 4.62 × 108 57,252.33 7,606,569
worst 1652.294 1.61 × 1010 98,545.34 2.73 × 1010 79,155.02 2.1 × 1010 1.25 × 108 173,167.1 1.4 × 109 2.37 × 109 1.48 × 109 1.22 × 109 20,100,543
C17-F15
std 47.73046 1.34 × 109 17,735.99 6.24 × 109 29,217.94 9.74 × 109 43,882,701 44,064.82 6.83 × 108 9.46 × 108 5.07 × 108 6.59 × 108 6,134,076
median 1618.063 1.4 × 1010 75,643.59 2.23 × 1010 57,178.46 1.18 × 1010 49,580,925 108,544.1 2.19 × 108 8.48 × 108 1.34 × 109 8,025,672 9,740,076
rank 1 12 3 13 2 11 6 4 8 9 10 7 5
mean 2711.795 17,807.45 6829.288 21,253.99 5332.392 13,739.07 15,293.69 6329.66 5869.532 10,884.72 10,477.1 6225.534 9999.215
best 2171.69 16598 5742.525 16,745.04 5239.684 11,341.61 12,487.67 5625.82 5308.174 10,390.05 9089.455 5978.097 9046.099
worst 3397.326 18,341.03 7514.044 23745.9 5460.054 16,458.29 16,919.1 6794.504 6497.975 11,891.14 12,089.74 6424.768 10,750.83
C17-F16
std 551.162 879.6119 831.8722 3433.857 106.0604 2272.515 2146.317 563.4107 667.5113 764.3616 1452.409 199.4727 836.6546
median 2639.081 18,145.39 7030.292 22,262.51 5314.915 13,578.19 15,884 6449.159 5835.99 10,628.84 10,364.6 6249.636 10,099.97
rank 1 12 6 13 2 10 11 5 3 9 8 4 7
mean 2716.564 3,927,275 5624.724 7,725,893 4511.263 203,733.2 16042.01 4809.563 5308.937 8323.727 43,381.69 5860.353 6845.326
best 2275.021 1,151,113 5414.129 2,094,250 4288.731 9678.96 9909.52 4382.975 4306.933 8195.078 28,508.01 5606.956 6686.242
worst 3429.127 8,935,000 6060.028 17,777,316 4710.347 540,996.5 27,054.55 5129.665 6853.048 8495.943 70,408.53 6081.679 7005.675
C17-F17
std 556.02 3,965,848 328.0954 7,974,652 229.3653 250,918.8 8340.432 407.3598 1220.069 157.2312 20,046.65 216.3887 143.4659
median 2581.054 2,811,493 5512.37 5,516,003 4522.987 132,128.7 13,601.98 4862.807 5037.884 8301.944 37,305.12 5876.389 6844.694
rank 1 12 5 13 2 11 9 3 4 8 10 6 7
mean 1903.746 54,356,713 2,621,689 95,922,318 216,127.9 13,870,673 11,171,762 4,568,794 10,201,355 15,082,925 10,942,616 5,991,480 5,620,042
best 1881.15 24,625,693 1,303,737 37,231,272 150,714.8 5,195,488 8,309,688 3,383,599 3,212,533 11,114,282 5,044,896 3,700,303 4,506,220
worst 1919.921 98,298,865 4,144,976 1.75 × 108 389,411.7 28,344,410 13,234,559 7,674,482 16,485,084 21,319,750 24,326,599 8,631,796 8,136,061
C17-F18
std 20.94507 34,014,380 1,391,324 62,946,116 125,243.3 11,273,064 2,425,796 2,246,539 5,902,257 4,738,024 9,823,889 2,476,657 1,846,375
median 1906.955 47,251,148 2,519,022 85,531,102 162,192.5 10,971,396 11,571,401 3,608,547 10,553,901 13,948,834 7,199,485 5,816,911 4,918,944
rank 1 12 3 13 2 10 9 4 7 11 8 6 5
mean 1972.839 1.18 × 1010 2,680,996 2.08 × 1010 260,890.9 4.7 × 109 1.25 × 108 15,497,056 3.36 × 108 6.23 × 108 1.47 × 109 2.51 × 108 11,920,249
best 1967.139 1.04 × 1010 1,026,475 1.52 × 1010 54,987 2.08 × 109 49,517,164 9,038,752 2,665,277 2.7 × 108 2.65 × 108 41735153 6,085,280
worst 1977.869 1.39 × 1010 4,935,230 2.59 × 1010 441,843 9.34 × 109 2.1 × 108 24,632,296 1.01 × 109 1.43 × 109 2.78 × 109 5.43 × 108 21,558,115
C17-F19
std 4.903424 1.7 × 109 1,785,587 4.78 × 109 173,544.5 3.47 × 109 80,527,497 8,319,908 5.08 × 108 5.9 × 108 1.35 × 109 2.63 × 108 7,420,795
median 1973.174 1.15 × 1010 2,381,140 2.11 × 1010 273,366.8 3.69 × 109 1.2 × 108 14,158,588 1.65 × 108 3.94 × 108 1.42 × 109 2.1 × 108 10,018,800
rank 1 12 3 13 2 11 6 5 8 9 10 7 4
mean 3192.04 7023.285 5985.235 7260.025 4412.931 6781.841 6793.6 5644.431 5890.077 6984.874 6120.649 5233.459 6075.159
best 2806.762 6829.743 5654.233 7149.763 4348.395 6182.804 6387.46 5349.746 4727.223 6213.519 5707.013 4530.691 5488.476
worst 3662.121 7208.922 6244.551 7348.729 4462.415 7523.552 7159.203 6141.253 6760.14 7304.646 6356.099 6062.992 6518.798
C17-F20
std 474.8604 174.0937 305.793 89.29151 54.68408 625.1056 363.8662 371.3965 1086.402 559.1247 314.4945 708.369 532.1535
median 3149.639 7027.237 6021.078 7270.804 4420.457 6710.503 6813.868 5543.363 6036.472 7210.666 6209.742 5170.075 6146.681
rank 1 12 6 13 2 9 10 4 5 11 8 3 7
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 28 of 54

Table 5. Cont.

KOA WSO AVOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 2342.155 4151.348 3574.821 4266.647 2799.036 3997.715 4093.548 3175.182 2932.013 3613.086 4549.153 3496.065 3343.183
best 2338.689 4107.393 3376.278 4194.602 2757.144 3862.258 3811.848 3110.225 2854.849 3461.704 4028.685 3319.511 3309.565
worst 2346.015 4217.579 3704.394 4320.067 2831.742 4089.581 4311.231 3297.735 2982.826 3785.023 4967.745 3829.46 3390.042
C17-F21
std 3.641031 56.93501 152.9064 58.93068 34.17408 120.6932 241.6377 90.93975 58.8322 148.8337 423.2554 249.8118 37.59003
median 2341.959 4140.209 3609.306 4275.959 2803.629 4019.511 4125.556 3146.383 2945.189 3602.808 4600.09 3417.645 3336.562
rank 1 11 7 12 2 9 10 4 3 8 13 6 5
mean 11,739 30,389.97 19,679.11 31,939.77 18,226.43 29,450.95 27,924.04 16,910.76 22,548.19 31,825.23 20,522.33 21,234.75 27,607.99
best 11,119.08 29,591.74 18,382.78 31,596.57 16,981.68 28,324.93 26,479.85 15,962.66 18,088.1 30,868.7 19,828.32 19,895.94 26,619.11
worst 12,601.6 30,838.34 21,415.94 32,523.91 19,791.77 30,521.39 29,094.01 17,579.6 32,990.52 32,297.18 20,865.15 22,720.8 28,365.86
C17-F22
std 705.4602 624.8952 1474.099 465.5068 1281.164 971.7317 1246.104 857.364 7647.385 700.4176 508.5205 1275.296 909.2197
median 11,617.67 30,564.91 19,458.85 31,819.29 18,066.14 29,478.73 28,061.15 17,050.39 19,557.07 32,067.52 20,697.92 21,161.13 27,723.5
rank 1 11 4 13 3 10 9 2 7 12 5 6 8
mean 2877.697 5183.395 4035.008 5185.429 3271.212 5296.835 5008.148 3447.223 3572.999 4129.891 7584.361 4745.825 4179.074
best 2872.107 4945.115 3958.545 4931.657 3256.419 4577.595 4872.533 3360.159 3542.184 4079.205 7020.19 4252.255 4115.922
worst 2884.013 5462.627 4115.774 5384.701 3300.867 6271.779 5144.648 3559.774 3616.474 4204.22 7983.468 5007.602 4240.551
C17-F23
std 5.637338 250.2595 80.11963 202.7715 21.6953 819.3767 140.7254 91.22045 36.74315 57.3217 470.63 367.588 73.25936
median 2877.334 5162.918 4032.856 5212.679 3263.78 5168.984 5007.706 3434.48 3566.67 4118.07 7666.893 4861.722 4179.912
rank 1 10 5 11 2 12 9 3 4 6 13 8 7
mean 3327.407 8237.866 5258.389 10,101.14 3694.095 6484.728 6209.392 3932.62 4240.506 4672.899 10,398.02 5813.699 5261.184
best 3295.518 6456.699 5051.152 6815.066 3649.127 6017.893 5808.354 3866.027 4014.79 4451.077 9777.358 5457.958 5175.657
worst 3357.991 9447.59 5431.181 12,287.15 3757.133 6792.878 6818.978 4037.589 4443.96 4891.541 12026.38 6267.152 5422.226
C17-F24
std 32.01326 1546.525 182.1746 2862.73 55.89092 357.0162 475.2686 87.21459 239.8235 195.1663 1174.871 390.3473 121.0442
median 3328.059 8523.587 5275.612 10,651.17 3685.059 6564.071 6105.117 3913.432 4251.637 4674.488 9894.175 5764.842 5223.427
rank 1 11 6 12 2 10 9 3 4 5 13 8 7
mean 3185.232 14,590.42 4086.698 20,310.76 3658.19 10,067.47 7074.01 3396.171 6250.883 8588.452 10594.16 4087.701 7625.964
best 3137.371 13,878.09 3727.323 18,843.71 3489.381 9445.538 6483.569 3333.134 6101.685 7418.938 9782.467 3832.002 6948.964
worst 3261.571 16,259.31 4423.181 23,589.11 3778.549 10,467.63 7437.697 3461.629 6633.122 10,150.83 12,040.09 4493.102 8316.299
C17-F25
std 64.74694 1215.09 310.2059 2414.639 131.1693 501.7799 465.92 58.5326 276.6495 1350.275 1080.962 342.0666 767.1223
median 3170.992 14,112.14 4098.144 19,405.11 3682.415 10178.35 7187.386 3394.961 6134.363 8392.017 10277.05 4012.85 7619.298
rank 1 12 4 13 3 10 7 2 6 9 11 5 8
mean 5757.621 37,599.89 23,572.79 43,207.23 11,303.81 31,755.76 32,347.71 11,500.89 16,242.84 22,847.97 32,255.29 19,867.5 22,032.2
best 5645.905 37,074.74 20,870.36 40,786.27 10,621.25 30,564.12 29,032.47 10,208.24 14,452.99 18,739.45 30,934.73 17,821.34 20,493.21
worst 5844.642 38,074.5 26,341.57 44706.3 12,019.7 32,501.94 35,155.84 13,765.58 17,757.37 28,060.05 33,983.27 21,759.69 23,073.9
C17-F26
std 90.69965 451.3916 2529.672 2034.296 747.0293 902.2386 3268.805 1686.672 1505.917 4178.487 1383.563 1793.502 1201.027
median 5769.969 37,625.15 23,539.62 43,668.18 11,287.15 31,978.48 32,601.27 11,014.87 16,380.51 22,296.19 32,051.58 19,944.49 22,280.85
rank 1 12 8 13 2 9 11 3 4 7 10 5 6
mean 3309.493 9004.867 4118.41 11805.97 3522.956 6429.837 5864.661 3607.936 4041.885 4275.759 13479.04 4034.66 5372.113
best 3278.01 7603.881 3953.301 8878.405 3486.441 6143.785 5196.528 3568.344 3879.077 4011.16 13152.01 3840.815 5123.343
worst 3344.5 10,418.38 4391.013 14849.6 3554.811 6785.19 6607.717 3699.249 4170.417 4711.741 13739.86 4228.793 5747.071
C17-F27
std 30.65647 1653.48 204.4777 3479.24 30.3614 300.5311 822.9413 66.8764 155.0178 336.4504 287.0312 231.2728 288.6769
median 3307.732 8998.604 4064.662 11747.94 3525.287 6395.185 5827.2 3582.075 4059.022 4190.067 13512.14 4034.515 5309.019
rank 1 11 6 12 2 10 9 3 5 7 13 4 8
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 29 of 54

Table 5. Cont.

KOA WSO AVOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 3322.242 19,970.48 4634.162 26,913.35 3747.849 15,045.04 10,001.47 3451.906 8955.999 10,757.53 17,980.34 7416.474 11,054.79
best 3318.742 18,603.57 4346.486 24,122.95 3629.68 11,836.61 8565.014 3371.964 7606.689 8432.049 15,531.52 5079.455 10,078.92
worst 3327.816 22,500.95 4846.292 30,405.94 3832.176 17,476.75 10942.3 3530.021 10,881.4 12,798.86 19,827.58 11,380.86 12,136.52
C17-F28
std 4.736062 1916.19 228.6993 2847.832 92.0496 2921.811 1093.816 70.30743 1492.568 2199.987 1942.042 3103.737 1190.622
median 3321.205 19,388.7 4671.935 26,562.25 3764.769 15,433.4 10,249.28 3452.819 8667.953 10,899.6 18,281.13 6602.789 11,001.85
rank 1 12 4 13 3 10 7 2 6 8 11 5 9
mean 4450.696 173,640.1 9332.285 330,325.3 6743.429 17,673.7 15876.58 8443.804 8086.701 11,981.54 23,809.95 8409.62 11,421.28
best 4169.151 99,002.72 8115.408 177,338.5 5954.734 13,612.53 13,266.43 7567.553 7913.373 11,160.53 19,685.19 7779.584 11,224.67
worst 4829.521 236,869.2 10,049.58 458,501.8 7479.424 22,334.88 18165 9053.309 8377.159 12,560.52 31,169.25 9253.719 11,868
C17-F29
std 305.1554 63,448.63 910.0788 129,502.2 675.575 3932.541 2606.5 696.2608 223.4335 643.3947 5778.63 752.3304 326.3862
median 4402.056 179,344.2 9582.073 342,730.4 6769.779 17,373.69 16,037.45 8577.176 8028.136 12,102.54 22,192.68 8302.588 11,296.22
rank 1 12 6 13 2 10 9 5 3 8 11 4 7
mean 5407.166 2.18 × 1010 26,142,846 3.56 × 1010 4,427,168 1.26 × 1010 1.41 × 109 97,057,830 1.73 × 109 3.57 × 109 6.93 × 109 5.7 × 108 6.28 × 108
best 5337.48 1.92 × 1010 14,897,444 3.32 × 1010 1,972,928 7.69 × 109 1.16 × 109 59,721,612 7.11 × 108 1.34 × 109 4.94 × 109 1.39 × 108 5.24 × 108
worst 5557.155 2.38 × 1010 45,972,422 3.84 × 1010 7,228,943 1.56 × 1010 1.92 × 109 1.19 × 108 2.26 × 109 6.62 × 109 8.39 × 109 1.77 × 109 6.73 × 108
C17-F30 std 109.3306 2.08 × 109 15,036,707 2.43 × 109 2,625,311 3.76 × 109 3.69 × 108 28729772 7.55 × 108 2.86 × 109 1.57 × 109 8.64 × 108 75569225
median 5367.014 2.22 × 1010 21,850,759 3.53 × 1010 4,253,401 1.36 × 1010 1.29 × 109 1.05 × 108 1.98 × 109 3.16 × 109 7.19 × 109 1.88 × 108 6.57 × 108
rank 1 12 3 13 2 11 7 4 8 9 10 5 6
Sum rank 29 336 140 355 65 293 265 114 156 249 272 162 203
Mean rank 1.00 11.6 4.83 12.2 2.24 10.1 9.14 3.93 5.38 8.59 9.38 5.59 7.00
Total rank 1 12 4 13 2 11 9 3 5 8 10 6 7
 worst 5557.155 2.38 × 1010 45,972,422 3.84 × 1010 7,228,943 1.56 × 1010 1.92 × 109 1.19 × 108 2.26 × 109 6.62 × 109 8.39 × 109 1.77 × 109 6.73 × 108
C17-F30
std 109.3306 2.08 × 109 15,036,707 2.43 × 109 2,625,311 3.76 × 109 3.69 × 108 28729772 7.55 × 108 2.86 × 109 1.57 × 109 8.64 × 108 75569225
median 5367.014 2.22 × 1010 21,850,759 3.53 × 1010 4,253,401 1.36 × 1010 1.29 × 109 1.05 × 108 1.98 × 109 3.16 × 109 7.19 × 109 1.88 × 108 6.57 × 108
rank 1 12 3 13 2 11 7 4 8 9 10 5 6
Sum rank 29 336 140 355 65 293 265 114 156 249 272 162 203
Mean rank 1.00 11.6 4.83 12.2 2.24 10.1 9.14 3.93 5.38 8.59 9.38 5.59 7.00
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 30 of 54
Total rank 1 12 4 13 2 11 9 3 5 8 10 6 7

Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 46

Figure 3. Cont.
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 31 of 54

Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 46

Figure3.3.Boxplot
Figure Boxplotdiagrams
diagramsofofKOA
KOAand
andcompetitor
competitoralgorithms
algorithmsperformances
performances on
on the
the CEC
CEC 2017
2017 test
test
suite(dimension
suite (dimension==10).
10).

Figure 4. Cont.
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 32 of 54

Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 26 of 46

Figure4.4.Boxplot
Figure Boxplotdiagrams
diagramsofofKOA
KOAand
andcompetitor
competitoralgorithms
algorithmsperformances
performanceson
onthe
theCEC
CEC2017
2017test
test
suite (dimension = 30).
suite (dimension = 30).
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 33 of test
Figure 4. Boxplot diagrams of KOA and competitor algorithms performances on the CEC 2017 54
suite (dimension = 30).

Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 27 of 46

Figure 5. Cont.
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 34 of 54

Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 28 of 46

Figure5.5.Boxplot
Figure Boxplotdiagrams
diagramsofofKOA
KOAand
andcompetitor
competitoralgorithms
algorithmsperformances
performanceson
onCEC
CEC2017
2017test
test suite
suite
(dimension =
(dimension = 50).50).

Figure 6. Cont.
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 35 of 54

Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 29 of 46

Figure6.6.Boxplot
Figure Boxplotdiagrams
diagramsofofKOA
KOAand
andcompetitor
competitoralgorithms
algorithmsperformances
performanceson
onthe
theCEC
CEC2017
2017test
test
suite (dimension = 100).
suite (dimension = 100).

4.2. The optimization

Statistical Analysisresults show that the proposed KOA approach, with a high ability in
both exploration and exploitation
In this subsection, using and the ability
statistical to balance
analysis, them
it has during
been the search
checked process,
whether the
has been able to provide suitable results for the benchmark functions. The analysis
superiority of KOA against competitor algorithms is significant from a statistical point of of the
simulation
view or not.results indicates
For this that the
purpose, KOA, by providing
Wilcoxon better
rank sum results
test and
[92] is obtaining
used, which the
is arank
non-
ofparametric
the first best optimizer in most of the benchmark functions, has provided a
test and is used to determine the significant difference between the average ofsuperior
two data samples. In this test, based on the values calculated for the p-value index, it is
determined whether there is a statistically significant difference between the performance
of the two algorithms or not.
The results of statistical analysis on the performance of KOA and each of the
competitor algorithms in handling the CEC 2017 test suite in different dimensions of the
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 36 of 54

performance compared to competitor algorithms in addressing the CEC 2017 test suite in
different dimensions of the problem equal to 10, 30, 50, and 100.

4.2. Statistical Analysis

In this subsection, using statistical analysis, it has been checked whether the superiority
of KOA against competitor algorithms is significant from a statistical point of view or not. For
this purpose, the Wilcoxon rank sum test [92] is used, which is a non-parametric test and is
used to determine the significant difference between the average of two data samples. In this
test, based on the values calculated for the p-value index, it is determined whether there is a
statistically significant difference between the performance of the two algorithms or not.
The results of statistical analysis on the performance of KOA and each of the competitor
algorithms in handling the CEC 2017 test suite in different dimensions of the problem are
reported in Table 6. Based on the results obtained from the Wilcoxon rank sum test, in
cases where the p-value is less than 0.05, the proposed KOA approach has a statistically
significant superiority in competition with the corresponding metaheuristic algorithm.

Table 6. Wilcoxon rank sum test results.

Objective Function Type

Compared CEC 2017
Algorithm
D = 10 D = 30 D = 50 D = 100
KOA vs. WSO 2.02 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21
KOA vs. AVOA 3.77 × 10−19 3.02 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21
KOA vs. RSA 1.97 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21
KOA vs. MPA 2 × 10−18 1.56 × 10−16 6.62 × 10−18 1.97 × 10−21
KOA vs. TSA 9.5 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21
KOA vs. WOA 9.5 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21
KOA vs. MVO 9.03 × 10−19 2.13 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21
KOA vs. GWO 5.23 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21
KOA vs. TLBO 3.69 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21
KOA vs. GSA 1.6 × 10−18 2.02 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21
KOA vs. PSO 1.54 × 10−19 2.35 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21
KOA vs. GA 2.71 × 10−19 1.97 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21 1.97 × 10−21

5. KOA for Real-World Applications

In this section, the efficiency of KOA in addressing real-world applications is chal-
lenged. For this purpose, 22 real-world constrained optimization problems from the CEC
2011 test suite as well as 4 classical engineering design problems are employed.

5.1. Evaluation CEC 2011 Test Suite

In this subsection, the ability of KOA and competitor algorithms in handling the
CEC 2011 test suite is evaluated. This test suite consists of 22 constrained optimization
problems from real-world applications. The full description and details of CEC 2011 test
suite are provided in [93]. The optimization results of CEC 2011 test suite using KOA and
competitor algorithms are reported in Table 7. Also, the boxplot diagrams obtained from
the performance of metaheuristic algorithms in solving optimization problems C11-F1 to
C11-F22 are drawn in Figure 7.
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 37 of 54

Table 7. Optimization results of the CEC 2011 test suite.

KOA WSO AVOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 5.920103 17.69621 12.96467 21.97703 7.568894 18.42799 13.25656 14.01025 10.86648 18.45995 21.6979 17.96646 23.39238
best 2E-10 15.32282 8.843037 20.11259 0.371001 17.49967 8.211643 11.67231 1.113002 17.0621 19.58887 10.44374 22.24898
worst 12.30606 20.53782 16.90606 24.49662 12.68518 19.88034 17.35422 16.01316 17.36624 19.9275 23.28124 24.29279 25.59286
C11-F1
std 7.399774 2.789025 4.832981 2.313631 6.116142 1.131403 4.572836 2.388968 7.500419 1.265393 1.662208 6.896339 1.616415
median 5.687176 17.4621 13.05478 21.64946 8.609699 18.16597 13.7302 14.17777 12.49333 18.42511 21.96075 18.56466 22.86384
rank 1 7 4 12 2 9 5 6 3 10 11 8 13
mean −26.3179 −14.5099 −21.0989 −11.7212 −25.1038 −11.4432 −18.702 -8.98275 −22.6755 −11.0541 −15.6523 −22.7239 −13.0666
best −27.0676 −15.8192 −21.6498 −12.1497 −25.7333 −15.1217 −22.0626 −10.9937 −24.7335 −12.251 −20.672 −24.0624 −15.3528
worst −25.4328 −13.3261 −20.3939 −11.2765 −23.7963 −9.28114 −14.7666 −7.46542 −19.1239 −9.99702 −11.6214 −20.3886 −11.4145
C11-F2
std 0.75982 1.374082 0.593766 0.518106 0.977426 2.981024 4.069634 1.659995 2.68147 1.011466 4.444806 1.736414 2.007767
median −26.3856 −14.4472 −21.176 −11.7292 −25.4427 −10.6851 −18.9893 −8.73593 −23.4223 −10.9842 −15.1579 −23.2224 −12.7496
rank 1 8 5 10 2 11 6 13 4 12 7 3 9
mean 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5
best 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5
worst 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5
C11-F4 std 2.06 × 10−19 2.23 × 10−11 2.56 × 10−9 5.02 × 10−11 1.25 × 10−15 2.4 × 10−14 6.12 × 10−19 1 × 10−12 3.75 × 10−15 7.88 × 10−14 2.01 × 10−19 6.24 × 10−20 2.77 × 10−18
median 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5 1.15 × 10−5
rank 1 11 13 12 6 8 4 10 7 9 3 2 5
mean 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
best 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
worst 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C11-F4
std 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
median 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rank 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
mean −34.1274 −24.9831 −28.2273 −20.2162 −33.2934 −27.268 −27.7581 −27.1305 −31.6254 −11.175 −27.481 −9.04533 −9.89133
best −34.7494 −26.1071 −29.2962 −22.3239 −33.8791 −31.5884 −27.9121 −31.7824 −34.1584 −13.2553 −31.5869 −12.5467 −11.3064
worst −33.3862 −24.0719 −27.7732 −17.9006 −31.9949 −22.0431 −27.3472 −24.7046 −27.6716 −9.5842 −24.3626 −7.35878 −8.26201
C11-F5
std 0.606664 0.954124 0.784459 2.5404 0.942943 4.250482 0.296382 3.570447 3.001446 1.69024 3.418314 2.641394 1.456586
median −34.1871 −24.8768 −27.9199 −20.3201 −33.6499 −27.7202 −27.8866 −26.0175 −32.3359 −10.9302 −26.9873 −8.13789 −9.99846
rank 1 9 4 10 2 7 5 8 3 11 6 13 12
mean −24.1119 −14.2181 −19.1303 −13.2402 −22.6478 −7.84618 −20.0368 −9.78463 −19.7197 −2.69281 −21.935 −3.54463 −4.43655
best −27.4298 −14.7657 −20.5764 −13.8753 −25.7881 −16.6588 −22.9903 −17.5337 −22.5047 −3.06335 −26.5427 −6.47064 −9.54426
worst −23.0059 −13.9749 −17.3535 −12.2206 −21.3642 −4.61296 −13.1388 −2.5693 −18.0809 −2.5693 −17.9788 −2.5693 −2.5693
C11-F6
std 2.390663 0.397953 1.588785 0.820027 2.291442 6.365898 5.059561 8.726487 2.281691 0.266989 3.995435 2.108302 3.688901
median −23.0059 −14.0658 −19.2956 −13.4325 −21.7195 −5.05648 −22.009 −9.51776 −19.1466 −2.5693 −21.6092 −2.5693 −2.81632
rank 1 7 6 8 2 10 4 9 5 13 3 12 11
mean 0.860699 1.588929 1.274321 1.895534 0.928052 1.291753 1.723324 0.8806 1.06276 1.698963 1.074534 1.117448 1.72023
best 0.582266 1.522831 1.135433 1.662115 0.753267 1.11618 1.60924 0.82157 0.819432 1.514974 0.877437 0.835816 1.331785
worst 1.025027 1.700462 1.415644 2.080803 1.011016 1.650959 1.89666 0.95286 1.28323 1.841822 1.270257 1.353691 1.92319
C11-F7
std 0.217481 0.085626 0.166357 0.187391 0.128277 0.262758 0.132348 0.068143 0.205983 0.153914 0.191356 0.287067 0.290068
median 0.91775 1.566211 1.273103 1.919609 0.973964 1.199937 1.693697 0.873984 1.074189 1.719527 1.07522 1.140142 1.812972
rank 1 9 7 13 3 8 12 2 4 10 5 6 11
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 38 of 54

Table 7. Cont.

KOA WSO AVOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 220 283.7103 240.076 323.3338 222.3985 256.5766 265.1711 223.9974 227.1954 223.9974 245.8376 464.6706 222.4429
best 220 257.7358 223.5533 283.1596 220 220 244.7841 220 220 220 220 247.5379 220
worst 220 317.7863 256.5988 367.1058 224.7969 351.9156 310.3422 235.9898 234.3908 235.9898 291.9539 563.2385 229.7715
C11-F8
std 0 28.41633 15.36966 37.21541 2.993307 69.08559 32.80142 8.640932 8.97992 8.640932 36.87853 161.4928 5.28057
median 220 279.6596 240.076 321.535 222.3985 227.1954 252.779 220 227.1954 220 235.6982 523.9529 220
rank 1 10 6 11 2 8 9 4 5 4 7 12 3
mean 8789.286 547,069.9 371,511.9 1,042,447 19,988.23 65,162.08 367,913.7 131,066 42,386.12 401,241.9 808,215.2 1,062,531 1,906,799
best 5457.674 365,873.9 328,486.9 680,930.6 10,949.51 46,760.89 203,657 74,302.37 18,223.63 331,972.8 691,779.1 852,885.8 1,827,490
worst 14,042.29 628,479.1 399,868.7 1,222,895 28,267.97 82,676.68 623,167.9 198,505.7 73,888.55 514,880.9 870,022.6 1,301,526 2,018,443
C11-F9
std 3999.103 133,854.2 33,856.02 265,605.1 8314.79 16,558.29 206,695.1 55,384.58 25,423.37 87,013.21 85,744.4 259,125.6 101,650
median 7828.591 596,963.3 378,846 1,132,982 20,367.72 65,605.38 322,415 125,728 38,716.15 379,057 835,529.5 1,047,857 1,890,632
rank 1 9 7 11 2 4 6 5 3 8 10 12 13
mean −21.4889 −14.12 −17.0125 −12.4613 −19.0763 −14.5312 −13.0442 −14.8369 −14.2509 −11.4892 −13.3191 −11.587 −11.2973
best −21.8299 −15.3076 −17.2046 −12.8483 −19.4648 −18.9145 −13.6865 −21.1931 −14.7348 −11.5875 −13.831 −11.6414 −11.351
worst −20.7878 −13.528 −16.6264 −12.2013 −18.6742 −12.2245 −12.5764 −11.6609 −13.1159 −11.3805 −12.5594 −11.5289 −11.207
C11-F10
std 0.512709 0.876051 0.289133 0.307505 0.431975 3.257029 0.502411 4.650939 0.829736 0.095696 0.674467 0.049723 0.067749
median −21.669 −13.8221 −17.1095 −12.3978 −19.083 −13.4929 −12.9569 −13.2468 −14.5765 −11.4944 −13.4429 −11.5888 −11.3155
rank 1 7 3 10 2 5 9 4 6 12 8 11 13
mean 571,712.3 5,699,003 982,575 8,695,685 1,637,333 5,838,576 1,202,495 1,293,544 3,768,573 5,118,129 1,394,379 5,128,987 6,013,014
best 260,837.9 5,433,021 762,118.9 8,399,152 1,523,824 4,860,529 1,092,833 614,398.3 3,577,942 5,083,410 1,249,502 5,105,127 5,964,397
worst 828,560.9 6,062,259 1,164,658 8,886,901 1,774,658 7,058,743 1,366,333 2,688,299 4,113,168 5,146,813 1,569,798 5,154,249 6,081,889
C11-F11
std 268,296.7 317,615.3 189,801.9 225,029.1 132,340.1 981,647.8 127,052.8 1,018,233 255,889.5 29,963.32 142,773.7 27,163.81 54,586.44
median 598,725.2 5,650,367 1,001,762 8,748,344 1,625,424 5,717,516 1,175,408 935,740.1 3,691,590 5,121,145 1,379,107 5,128,286 6,002,886
rank 1 10 2 13 6 11 3 4 7 8 5 9 12
mean 1,199,805 8,247,720 3332149 12996285 1273063 4953266 5722934 1324897 1419579 14067521 5,698,270 2,291,644 14,225,236
best 1,155,937 7,907,266 3,230,675 12,072,526 1,198,236 4,690,112 5,313,383 1,176,929 1,258,103 13,243,726 5,415,337 2,125,889 14,099,206
worst 1,249,353 8,550,516 3,399,703 13,809,129 1,351,682 5,093,366 5,926,822 1,465,198 1,556,340 14,706,404 5,901,330 2,495,183 14,354,468
C11-F12
std 48,490.42 288,426.6 79,806.35 769,838.2 72,755.16 202,184.7 305,498.4 127,369.5 133,721.5 663,071.6 226,167.1 164,645.1 112,791.6
median 1,196,965 8,266,549 3,349,110 13,051,743 1,271,167 5,014,794 5,825,766 1,328,729 1,431,937 14,159,977 5,738,206 2,272,753 14,223,634
rank 1 10 6 11 2 7 9 3 4 12 8 5 13
mean 15,444.2 15,849.66 15,447.92 16,293.63 15,462.8 15,489.3 15,533.71 15,506.67 15,500.01 15,923.76 126,162.5 15,489.93 29,722.15
best 15,444.19 15,667.75 15,446.94 15,885.5 15,460.54 15,479.58 15,490.86 15,486.82 15,493.22 15,623.98 91,287.79 15,473.04 15,460.14
worst 15,444.21 16,290.4 15,449.01 17,307.6 15,466.72 15,501.67 15,591.47 15,544.43 15,511.76 16,476.01 173,464.7 15,525.75 72,163.25
C11-F13
std 0.009348 320.6504 0.938979 736.6177 2.959633 11.80676 50.59361 28.86293 8.881369 416.8059 39,987.59 26.08554 30,580.59
median 15,444.2 15,720.26 15,447.87 15,990.71 15,461.98 15,487.98 15,526.25 15,497.71 15,497.53 15,797.52 119,948.7 15,480.47 15,632.6
rank 1 9 2 11 3 4 8 7 6 10 13 5 12
mean 18,295.35 110,685.3 18,515.1 225,080.2 18,601.83 19,507.73 19,207.97 19,397.93 19,214.78 305,234.2 19,077.49 19,109.43 19,096.92
best 18,241.58 84,287.1 18,400.49 165,852.5 18,517.66 19,256.18 19,055.73 19,297.38 19,069.82 30,025.79 18,794.25 18,949.03 18,818.17
worst 18,388.08 154,677.8 18,613.52 324,221.2 18,678.45 20,044.58 19,324.43 19,476.34 19,395.21 588,832.6 19,282.27 19,254.99 19,389.24
C11-F14
std 73.62303 34,029.61 108.1547 76,671.27 74.21487 390.7942 134.2957 82.00688 155.2719 289,952.1 228.9053 135.3985 252.3024
median 18,275.87 101,888 18,523.19 205,123.5 18,605.6 19,365.08 19,225.86 19,409 19,197.05 301,039.2 19,116.72 19,116.85 19,090.13
rank 1 11 2 12 3 10 7 9 8 13 4 6 5
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 39 of 54

Table 7. Cont.

KOA WSO AVOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 32,883.58 891,992.1 106,461.7 1,880,192 32,947.15 54,153.9 215,191.7 33,096.01 33,074.28 15,137,368 294,860.9 33,280.57 7,790,850
best 32,782.17 368,009.3 42,983.25 786,645 32,868.23 33,046.02 33,005.18 33,011.17 33,040.28 3,172,284 261,029.5 33,272.8 3,546,456
worst 32,956.46 2,242,044 177,487.4 4,907,029 33,017.52 117,203.6 307,751.1 33,154.09 33,139.62 22,572,975 318,021.3 33,293.28 13,351,586
C11-F15
std 79.12175 976,285.5 78,132.6 2,184,347 66.11049 45,429.94 134,057.9 67.98468 50.6283 9,534,343 28,655.01 9.676778 4,859,075
median 32,897.86 478,957.5 102,688 913,547.5 32,951.42 33,182.97 260,005.3 33,109.38 33,058.6 17,402,107 300,196.3 33,278.1 7,132,679
rank 1 10 7 11 2 6 8 4 3 13 9 5 12
mean 133,550 930,219.4 135,146.9 1,915,857 137,581.4 144,911.9 142,003.9 141,654.9 145,644.1 87,266,512 18,380,211 78,107,911 74,996,694
best 131,374.2 286,073.5 133,610 467,490 135,495.9 142,214 136,296.5 133,236.5 143,189 85,038,927 9,336,639 64,610,606 60,613,719
worst 136,310.8 2,194,266 135,733 4,757,764 141,249.3 146,800.8 147,282.8 150,243.3 151,126.3 89,779,020 33,251,973 93,336,289 95,925,797
C11-F16
std 2459.812 927,612 1111.105 2,085,461 2774.227 2428.678 4954.729 7708.969 3994.098 2,147,100 11,176,659 13,382,204 16,212,147
median 133,257.5 620,269 135,622.3 1,219,088 136,790.1 145,316.4 142,218.1 141,570 144,130.5 87,124,050 15,466,115 77,242,375 71,723,630
rank 1 8 2 9 3 6 5 4 7 13 10 12 11
mean 1,926,615 8.8 × 109 2.27 × 109 1.52 × 1010 2,284,236 1.26 × 109 9.52 × 109 3,090,266 2,999,477 2.19 × 1010 1.1 × 1010 2.04 × 1010 2.15 × 1010
best 1,916,953 7.5 × 109 2.06 × 109 1.09 × 1010 1,956,608 1.04 × 109 6.79 × 109 2,290,263 2,035,918 2.11 × 1010 9.69 × 109 1.8 × 1010 2.01 × 1010
worst 1,942,685 9.75 × 109 2.49 × 109 1.86 × 1010 2,888,986 1.44 × 109 1.27 × 1010 3,709,332 4,826,319 2.29 × 1010 1.17 × 1010 2.36 × 1010 2.42 × 1010
C11-F17 std 12,342.79 1.08 × 109 2.01 × 108 3.56 × 109 451,894.6 2.23 × 108 2.67 × 109 707,895.2 1,358,575 7.99 × 108 9.7 × 108 2.73 × 109 2.05 × 109
median 1,923,412 8.97 × 109 2.27 × 109 1.57 × 1010 2,145,674 1.28 × 109 9.31 × 109 3,180,735 2,567,834 2.18 × 1010 1.13 × 1010 2.01 × 1010 2.08 × 1010
rank 1 7 6 10 2 5 8 4 3 13 9 11 12
mean 942,057.5 53,992,864 6,452,285 1.16 × 108 971,200.5 2,029,797 9,420,999 987,267 1029,486 30,449,642 10,940,996 1.32 × 108 1.12 × 108
best 938,416.2 37,139,709 3,886,612 80,284,910 949,566.1 1,777,412 4,062,802 963,557.9 966,544.1 24,137,837 8,169,164 1.11 × 108 1.08 × 108
worst 944,706.9 61,413,964 11,054,310 1.33 × 108 1,028,421 2,366,184 16,526,008 998,198.6 1,195,849 32,937,033 13,797,505 1.47 × 108 1.17 × 108
C11-F18
std 2852.546 12,286,170 3,607,658 26,529,357 41,362.17 306,787.1 5,687,958 17,303.95 120,120.5 4,566,634 2,717,842 17344620 3652762
median 942,553.5 58,708,890 5,434,109 1.26 × 108 953,407.4 1,987,796 8,547,593 993,655.7 977,776.1 32,361,850 10,898,658 1.36 × 108 1.12 × 108
rank 1 10 6 12 2 5 7 3 4 9 8 13 11
mean 1,025,341 53,148,463 6,553,177 1.14 × 108 1,135,759 2,437,008 10,049,581 1,468,377 1,356,595 34,957,413 6,171,131 1.7 × 108 1.13 × 108
best 967,927.7 45,352,373 5,986,725 98,336,201 1,066,369 2,201,050 2,039,611 1,125,232 1,227,679 24,485,310 2,364,740 1.54 × 108 1.1 × 108
worst 1,167,142 67,568,653 7,933,742 1.43 × 108 1,290,586 2,872,382 18,188,632 1,941,594 1,537,473 43,599,463 8,096,958 1.96 × 108 1.16 × 108
C11-F19 std 102,492.2 10,833,756 1,001,413 22,546,262 112,531.9 322,100.6 8,216,956 369,271.1 140,621.9 8,948,137 2,812,157 19,783,157 2,737,120
median 983,146.6 49,836,412 6,146,121 1.07 × 108 1,093,040 2,337,301 9,985,041 1,403,340 1,330,614 35,872,439 7,111,412 1.64 × 108 1.13 × 108
rank 1 10 7 12 2 5 8 4 3 9 6 13 11
mean 941,250.4 56,509,020 5,801,655 1.23 × 108 959,996 1,810,298 7,164,791 972,234.1 997,487.3 33,954,979 14,026,422 1.56 × 108 1.13 × 108
best 936,143.2 49,719,897 5,117,171 1.08 × 108 956,898.3 1,629,827 6,751,421 962,492.3 976,961.7 33,210,844 9,322,495 1.43 × 108 1.08 × 108
worst 946,866.6 66,914,630 6,533,334 1.46 × 108 961,914.3 2,110,594 7,716,489 983,286 1,013,457 34,759,801 21,703,055 1.7 × 108 1.17 × 108
C11-F20
std 5155.253 7,919,081 635,291 17,773,474 2340.981 246,729.1 445,895.7 9846.595 16,998.67 696,370.4 5,847,652 16,191,798 4,388,670
median 940,995.9 54,700,777 5778,058 1.19 × 108 960,585.7 1,750,387 7,095,627 971,579.1 999,765.5 33,924,636 12,540,070 1.56 × 108 1.14 × 108
rank 1 10 6 12 2 5 7 3 4 9 8 13 11
mean 12.71443 49.5692 21.48233 75.31365 15.87735 29.51655 38.32132 27.27063 22.20321 99.10431 40.19808 104.0484 100.9755
best 9.974206 40.87478 20.10833 56.13583 13.68984 26.19513 35.12125 24.26861 20.4207 47.72372 35.44736 89.98702 57.96669
worst 14.97499 58.87718 23.31862 94.46155 18.16644 30.99758 42.3 30.29163 24.54933 145.8555 43.09654 115.6756 123.1913
C11-F21
std 2.480858 8.382327 1.480962 18.29105 2.24619 2.4322 3.426502 3.672225 1.98522 43.45024 3.685619 13.69468 32.80485
median 12.95425 49.26243 21.25119 75.32861 15.82657 30.43674 37.932 27.26113 21.92141 101.419 41.12421 105.2655 111.372
rank 1 9 3 10 2 6 7 5 4 11 8 13 12
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 40 of 54

Table 7. Cont.

KOA WSO AVOA RSA MPA TSA WOA MVO GWO TLBO GSA PSO GA
mean 16.12513 46.26618 27.24332 62.63881 19.02841 31.85176 45.79438 32.0051 24.83497 101.0649 46.14521 105.026 91.21431
best 11.50133 40.28398 21.98339 45.5216 16.10377 27.78821 39.51137 24.57618 23.84349 65.45846 38.64725 88.0089 90.18309
worst 19.55286 51.79321 32.49921 72.15042 21.23028 34.41746 50.53472 37.07604 25.60263 119.7263 54.87466 116.0237 92.84607
C11-F22
std 4.316441 5.332108 5.373903 12.72094 2.646729 3.089736 5.385079 5.98562 0.850828 26.35509 7.226255 13.61933 1.242127
median 16.72317 46.49376 27.24535 66.44161 19.3898 32.6007 46.56572 33.18408 24.94688 109.5374 45.52947 108.0357 90.91404
rank 1 9 4 10 2 5 7 6 3 12 8 13 11
Sum rank 22 191 109 231 55 146 145 118 97
97 222 157 198 224
Mean rank 1.00 8.68 4.95 10.5 2.50 6.64 6.59 5.36 97
4.41 10.1 7.14 9.00 10.2
Total rank 1 2 12 4 13 3 11 9 97
6 7 10 5 8
Wilcoxon: p-value 1.71 × 10−15 9.77 × 10−15 1.71 × 10−15 7.10 × 10−15 3.66 × 10−15 1.71 × 10−15 3.99 × 10−12 7.10 ×9710−15 5.36 × 10−15 8.52 × 10−15 2.54 × 10−15 5.36 × 10−15
 median 16.72317 46.49376 27.24535 66.44161 19.3898 32.6007 46.56572 33.18408 24.94688 109.5374 45.52947 108.0357 90.91404
rank 1 9 4 10 2 5 7 6 3 12 8 13 11
Sum rank 22 191 109 231 55 146 145 118 97 222 157 198 224
Mean rank 1.00 8.68 4.95 10.5 2.50 6.64 6.59 5.36 4.41 10.1 7.14 9.00 10.2
Total rank 1 2 12 4 13 3 11 9 6 7 10 5 8
1.71 × 7.10 × 3.99 × 7.10 × 5.36 ×
Wilcoxon: p-value
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 9.77 × 10−15 1.71 × 10−15 3.66 × 10−15 1.71 × 10−15 5.36 × 10−15 8.52 × 10−15 2.54 × 10−15
41 of 54
10−15 10−15 10−12 10−15 10−15

Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 33 of 46

Figure7.7.Boxplot
Figure Boxplot diagrams
diagrams of of
KOAKOA and
and competitor
competitor algorithms
algorithms performances
performances onCEC
on the the CEC
2011 2011 test
test suite.
suite.

5.2. Pressure Vessel Design Problem

Pressure vessel design is a real-world optimization application aimed at minimizing
construction cost. Pressure vessel design schematic is shown in Figure 8 and its
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 42 of 54

The optimization results show that KOA, with its high ability to balance exploration
and exploitation, has been able to provide suitable results for optimization problems in
real-world applications. Based on the simulation results, KOA is the first best optimizer for
C11-F1 to C11-F22. What is concluded from the analysis of the simulation results is that
KOA has provided better results in most of the optimization problems compared to the
competitor algorithms in handling the CEC 2011 test suite. Also, based on the statistical
analysis and the results obtained from the Wilcoxon rank sum test, the superiority of KOA
compared to competitor algorithms is significant from a statistical point of view.

5.2. Pressure Vessel Design Problem

Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW Pressure
vessel design is a real-world optimization application aimed at minimizing
35 of 46
construction cost. Pressure vessel design schematic is shown in Figure 8 and its mathemati-
cal model is as follows [94]:

Figure8.8.Schematic
Figure Schematicof
ofpressure
pressurevessel
vesseldesign.
design.

Consider: X = [ x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ] = [ Ts , Th , R, L].
Minimize: f ( x ) = 0.6224x1 x3 x4 + 1.778x2 x32 + 3.1661x12 x4 + 19.84x12 x3 .
Subject to:

g1 ( x ) = − x1 + 0.0193x3 ≤ 0, g2 ( x ) = − x2 + 0.00954x3 ≤ 0,

4
g3 ( x ) = −πx32 x4 − πx33 + 1, 296, 000 ≤ 0, g4 ( x ) = x4 − 240 ≤ 0.
3
with
0 ≤ x1 , x2 ≤ 100 and 10 ≤ x3 , x4 ≤ 200.
The pressure vessel design optimization results using KOA and competitor algorithms
are reported in Tables 8 and 9. Based on the results, KOA has provided the optimal design
with the values of design variables equal to (0.7780271, 0.3845792, 40.312284, 200) and the
corresponding objective function value equal to (5882.8955). The convergence curve of KOA
during the pressure vessel design optimization is drawn in Figure 9. Based on the compari-
son of optimization results, it is evident that KOA has provided superior performance in
the pressure vessel design optimization compared to the competitor algorithms.
Figure 9. KOA’s performance convergence curve on pressure vessel design.

5.3. Speed Reducer Design Problem

Speed reducer design is an engineering challenge with the aim of minimizing the
weight of the speed reducer. The schematic of speed reducer design is shown in Figure 10
and its mathematical model is as follows [95,96]:
Consider: 𝑋 = 𝑥 , 𝑥 , 𝑥 , 𝑥 , 𝑥 , 𝑥 , 𝑥 = 𝑏, 𝑚, 𝑝, 𝑙 , 𝑙 , 𝑑 , 𝑑 .
Minimize: 𝑓(𝑥) = 0.7854𝑥 𝑥 (3.3333𝑥 + 14.9334𝑥 − 43.0934) − 1.508𝑥 (𝑥 +
𝑥 ) + 7.4777(𝑥 + 𝑥 ) + 0.7854(𝑥 𝑥 + 𝑥 𝑥 ).
Subject to:
27 397.5
𝑔 (𝑥) = − 1 ≤ 0, 𝑔 (𝑥) = − 1 ≤ 0,
𝑥 𝑥 𝑥 𝑥 𝑥 𝑥
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 43 of 54

Table 8. Performance of optimization algorithms on the pressure vessel design problem.

Optimum Variables
Algorithm Optimum Cost
Ts Th R L
KOA 0.7780271 0.3845792 40.312284 200 5882.8955
WSO 0.7780271 0.3845792 40.312284 200 5882.9013
AVOA 0.7780314 0.3845813 40.312509 199.99686 5882.9088
RSA 1.2659852 0.683916 63.993566 22.16777 8079.2663
MPA 0.7780271 0.3845792 40.312284 200 5882.9013
TSA 0.77975 0.38603 40.399151 200 5913.8806
WOA 0.9342363 0.4623891 47.238081 122.5792 6336.8911
MVO 0.8440256 0.4218218 43.712275 157.7639 6024.4345
GWO 0.7785336 0.3860227 40.322047 199.95837 5891.4545
TLBO 1.6957318 0.4977642 48.952657 111.82372 11,645.486
GSA 1.189919 1.2892052 44.756424 189.21969 13,022.865
PSO 1.6814562 0.6637242 67.02456 24.219082 10,699.118
GA 1.5133659 0.8511325 61.306853 52.513848 11,777.624

Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Table 35 problem.
9. Statistical results of optimization algorithms on the pressure vessel design of 46

Algorithm Mean Best Worst Std Median Rank

KOA 5882.8955 5882.8955 5882.8955 1.87 × 10−12 5882.8955 1
WSO 5892.6429 5882.9013 5979.0155 26.000485 5882.9017 3
AVOA 6276.8326 5882.9088 7244.3289 412.32817 6075.7427 5
RSA 13,520.395 8079.2663 22,393.029 3659.2762 12,342.889 9
MPA 5882.9013 5882.9013 5882.9013 4.31 × 10−6 5882.9013 2
TSA 6337.2069 5913.8806 7129.7183 389.86033 6187.9875 6
WOA 8358.7251 6336.8911 13,983.562 1968.1481 7868.4088 8
MVO 6626.21 6024.4345 7249.1095 374.8357 6689.5036 7
GWO 6034.402 5891.4545 6805.1241 280.12773 5901.2126 4
TLBO 32,084.076 11,645.486 69,575.146 16,143.602 28,224.957 12
GSA 23,155.786 13,022.865 36,568.394 7853.9605 22,204.189 10
PSO 33,739.014 10,699.118 58,342.053 15,113.442 37,275.068 13
GA 28,754.207 11,777.624 52,278.822 12,671.826 25,388.128 11
Figure 8. Schematic of pressure vessel design.

Figure 9. KOA’s
Figure performance
9. KOA’s convergence
performance curve on
convergence pressure
curve vessel design.
on pressure vessel design.

5.3. Speed Reducer Design Problem

Speed reducer design is an engineering challenge with the aim of minimizing the
weight of the speed reducer. The schematic of speed reducer design is shown in Figure 10
and its mathematical model is as follows [95,96]:
Consider: 𝑋 = 𝑥 , 𝑥 , 𝑥 , 𝑥 , 𝑥 , 𝑥 , 𝑥 = 𝑏, 𝑚, 𝑝, 𝑙 , 𝑙 , 𝑑 , 𝑑 .
Minimize: 𝑓(𝑥) = 0.7854𝑥 𝑥 (3.3333𝑥 + 14.9334𝑥 − 43.0934) − 1.508𝑥 (𝑥 +
𝑥 ) + 7.4777(𝑥 + 𝑥 ) + 0.7854(𝑥 𝑥 + 𝑥 𝑥 ).
Subject to:
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 44 of 54

5.3. Speed Reducer Design Problem

Speed reducer design is an engineering challenge with the aim of minimizing the
Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 37 of 46
weight of the speed reducer. The schematic of speed reducer design is shown in Figure 10
and its mathematical model is as follows [95,96]:

Figure
Figure 10.
10. Schematic
Schematic of
of the
the speed
speed reducer
reducer design.
design.

Consider: X = [ x1, x2 , x3 , x4 , x5 , x6 , x7 ] = [b, m, p, l1 , l2 , d1 , d2 ].

Minimize:
f ( x ) = 0.7854x1 x22 3.3333x 2 2 2


3 + 14.9334x3 − 43.0934 − 1.508x1 x6 + x7 +
7.4777 x63 + x73 + 0.7854 x4 x62 + x5 x72 .

Subject to:
27 397.5
g1 ( x ) = 2
− 1 ≤ 0, g2 ( x ) = − 1 ≤ 0,
x1 x2 x3 x1 x22 x3

1.93x43 1.93x53
g3 ( x ) = − 1 ≤ 0, g4 ( x ) = − 1 ≤ 0,
x2 x3 x64 x2 x3 x74
s
745x4 2
 
1
g5 ( x ) = + 16.9 × 106 − 1 ≤ 0,
110x63 x2 x3
s
745x5 2
 
1
g6 ( x ) = + 157.5 × 106 − 1 ≤ 0,
85x73 x2 x3
x2 x3 5x
g7 ( x ) = − 1 ≤ 0, g8 ( x ) = 2 − 1 ≤ 0,
40 x1

x1 1.5x6 + 1.9
g9 ( x ) = − 1 ≤ 0, g10 ( x ) = − 1 ≤ 0,
12x x4
Figure 11. KOA’s performance convergence curve on speed reducer
2 design.

1.1x7 + 1.9
g11 ( x ) = − 1 ≤ 0.
x5
with
2.6 ≤ x1 ≤ 3.6, 0.7 ≤ x2 ≤ 0.8, 17 ≤ x3 ≤ 28, 7.3 ≤ x4 ≤ 8.3, 7.8 ≤ x5
≤ 8.3, 2.9 ≤ x6 ≤ 3.9, and 5 ≤ x7 ≤ 5.5.

The implementation results of KOA and competitor algorithms on the speed reducer
design are presented in Tables 10 and 11. Based on the results, KOA has provided the
optimal design with the values of design variables equal to (3.5, 0.7, 17, 7.3, 7.8, 3.3502147,
5.2866832) and the corresponding objective function value equal to (2996.3482). The con-
vergence curve of KOA while achieving the optimal design for the speed reducer design
problem is drawn in Figure 11. The analysis of the simulation results shows the superiority
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 45 of 54

of KOA performance compared to the competitor algorithms in order to handle the speed
reducer design.

Table 10. Performance of optimization algorithms on the speed reducer design problem.

Optimum Variables Optimum

Algorithm
b M p l1 l2 d1 d2 Cost

KOA 3.5 0.7 17 7.3 7.8 3.3502147 5.2866832 2996.3482

WSO 3.5000005 0.7 17 7.3000102 7.8000004 3.3502148 5.2866833 2996.3483
AVOA 3.5 0.7 17 7.3000008 7.8 3.3502147 5.2866832 2996.3482
RSA 3.5950209 0.7 17 8.2502092 8.2751046 3.3558321 5.4893788 3188.6002
MPA 3.5 0.7 17 7.3 7.8 3.3502147 5.2866832 2996.3482
TSA 3.5132973 0.7 17 7.3 8.2751046 3.3505506 5.2903255 3014.418
WOA 3.5901774 0.7 17 7.3 8.0158051 3.361964 5.286758 3039.5462
MVO 3.5023215 0.7 17 7.3 8.0773644 3.3701939 5.2868879 3008.6019
GWO 3.5006611 0.7 17 7.3053023 7.8 3.3643722 5.2888758 3001.6737
TLBO 3.5578323 0.704121 26.612082 8.1261628 8.1558799 3.6731217 5.3409871 5340.6121
GSA 3.5236186 0.7028384 17.380563 7.8366336 7.8923823 3.4105869 5.389006 3175.0876
PSO 3.5084369 0.7000742 18.129553 7.4021022 7.870135 3.603038 5.3457978 3312.0108
GA 3.5804277 0.7057375 17.839 7.7562744 7.8575718 3.7124313 5.3481792 3360

Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW Table 37 of 46

11. Statistical results of optimization algorithms on the speed reducer design problem.

Algorithm Mean Best Worst Std Median Rank

KOA 2996.3482 2996.3482 2996.3482 9.33 × 10−13 2996.3482 1
WSO 2996.6405 2996.3483 2998.8751 0.6029466 2996.3649 3
AVOA 3000.9954 2996.3482 3011.5309 4.0907833 3000.8928 4
RSA 3285.4608 3188.6002 3345.574 59.295486 3300.799 9
MPA 2996.3482 2996.3482 2996.3482 3.28 × 10−6 2996.3482 2
TSA 3033.2399 3014.418 3047.3957 10.453483 3035.0831 7
WOA 3154.8097 3039.5462 3458.9999 109.58738 3120.44 8
MVO 3030.8587 3008.6019 3072.4627 13.667672 3031.3121 6
GWO 3004.8775 3001.6737 3011.027 2.5848683 3004.3436 5
TLBO 7.171 × 1013 5340.6121 5.19 × 1014 1.193 × 1014 2.808 × 1013 12
GSA 3468.8298 3175.0876 4109.0755 270.3186 3335.169 10
PSO 1.058 × 1014 3312.0108 5.361 × 1014 1.278 × 1014 7.569 × 1013 13
GA 5.095 × 1013 3357.7007 3.289 × 1014 8.026 × 1013 2.041 × 1013 11
Figure 10. Schematic of the speed reducer design.

Figure 11. KOA’s

Figure performance
11. KOA’s convergence
performance curve on speed
convergence curvereducer design.
on speed reducer design.
 AVOA 1.7623182 1.7259523 1.8462594 0.0375758 1.7480047 7
RSA 2.1954892 1.9831072 2.5536739 0.1485183 2.1696915 8
MPA 1.7248523 1.7248523 1.7248523 3.46 × 10−9 1.7248523 2
TSA 1.7437046 1.7341191 1.7531762 0.0057759 1.7438038 6
Biomimetics
WOA 2023, 8, 470 2.3285011 1.8242648 4.1166131 0.6611968 2.0967293 9 46 of 54
MVO 1.7417197 1.7284719 1.7765724 0.0141747 1.7375259 5
GWO 1.7273254 1.7255441 1.7314921 0.0014042 1.7270728 4
TLBO 5.4.
3.427 × 10 13 Welded Beam Design 3.307 × 1014
3.0631667 8.359 × 1013 5.8118858 12
GSA 2.4655242 Welded beam design 2.7834667
2.0954226 is a real-world application
0.1973298 in engineering
2.4959644with the aim10of mini-
PSO mizing
4.726 × 10 13 the fabrication cost
4.0927486 of the
2.861 welded
× 10 14 beam.
9.026 ×The
1013schematic of welded beam 13
6.881908 design is
GA 1.16 × 10shown
13 in Figure
2.792471612 and its mathematical
1.255 × 10 14 model is as
3.561 × 10 13follows [38]:
5.7774686 11

Figure12.
Figure 12. Schematic
Schematic of
of welded
welded beam
beam design.
design.

Consider: X = [ x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ] = [h, l, t, b].

Minimize: f ( x ) = 1.10471x12 x2 + 0.04811x3 x4 (14.0 + x2 ).
Subject to:

g1 ( x ) = τ ( x ) − 13, 600 ≤ 0, g2 ( x ) = σ ( x ) − 30, 000 ≤ 0,

g3 ( x ) = x1 − x4 ≤ 0, g4 ( x ) = 0.10471x12 + 0.04811x3 x4 (14 + x2 ) − 5.0 ≤ 0,

g5 ( x ) = 0.125 − x1 ≤ 0, g6 ( x ) = δ ( x ) − 0.25 ≤ 0,

g7 ( x ) = 6000 − pc ( x ) ≤ 0.
where r
x2 6000 MR
τ (x) = (τ 0 )2 + (2ττ 0 ) + (τ”)2 , τ 0 = √ , τ” = ,
2R 2x1 x2 J
s
x22 x1 + x3 2
 
 x2 
M = 6000 14 + , R= + ,
2 4 2
( " #)
√ x22  x1 + x3 2 504, 000
J = 2 x1 x2 2 + , σ( x) = ,
12 2 x4 x32
q
6

x32 x46 s !
65, 856, 000 4.013 30 · 10 36 x3 30·106
δ (x) = , pc ( x ) = 1− .
(30·106 ) x4 x33 196 28 4(12·106 )
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 47 of 54

with
0.1 ≤ x1 , x4 ≤ 2 and 0.1 ≤ x2 , x3 ≤ 10.
The results of employing KOA and competitor algorithms in handling the welded
beam design problem are reported in Tables 12 and 13. Based on the results, KOA has pro-
vided the optimal design with the values of design variables equal to (0.2057296, 3.4704887,
9.0366239, 0.2057296) and the corresponding objective function value equal to (1.7246798).
The convergence process of KOA towards the optimal solution for the welded beam de-
sign problem is drawn in Figure 13. What is clear from the analysis of the optimization
results is that KOA has provided a more effective performance compared to the competitor
algorithms in the optimization of the welded beam design.

Table 12. Performance of optimization algorithms on the welded beam design problem.

Optimum Variables
Algorithm Optimum Cost
h l t b
KOA 0.2057296 3.4704887 9.0366239 0.2057296 1.7246798
WSO 0.2057296 3.4704887 9.0366239 0.2057296 1.7248523
AVOA 0.2049413 3.4875839 9.036514 0.2057347 1.7259523
RSA 0.1964182 3.5366405 9.9520327 0.2181668 1.9831072
MPA 0.2057296 3.4704887 9.0366239 0.2057296 1.7248523
TSA 0.2041488 3.4961387 9.0650317 0.2061694 1.7341191
WOA 0.2139726 3.3254365 8.9719001 0.2214638 1.8242648
MVO 0.2060012 3.4646369 9.0449319 0.2060655 1.7284719
GWO 0.2055878 3.4737417 9.0362284 0.2058009 1.7255441
TLBO 0.3185927 4.4505676 6.729429 0.4317775 3.0631667
GSA 0.2965218 2.6988989 7.3719858 0.3110575 2.0954226
PSO 0.3776166 3.4232855 7.2930935 0.5851578 4.0927486
GA 0.2248746 7.0193634 7.724663 0.3073695 2.7924716

Table 13. Statistical results of optimization algorithms on the welded beam design problem.

Algorithm Mean Best Worst Std Median Rank

KOA 1.7246798 1.7246798 1.7246798 2.28 × 10−16 1.7246798 1
WSO 1.7248527 1.7248523 1.724858 1.289 × 10−6 1.7248523 3
AVOA 1.7623182 1.7259523 1.8462594 0.0375758 1.7480047 7
RSA 2.1954892 1.9831072 2.5536739 0.1485183 2.1696915 8
MPA 1.7248523 1.7248523 1.7248523 3.46 × 10−9 1.7248523 2
TSA 1.7437046 1.7341191 1.7531762 0.0057759 1.7438038 6
WOA 2.3285011 1.8242648 4.1166131 0.6611968 2.0967293 9
MVO 1.7417197 1.7284719 1.7765724 0.0141747 1.7375259 5
GWO 1.7273254 1.7255441 1.7314921 0.0014042 1.7270728 4
TLBO 3.427 × 1013 3.0631667 3.307 × 1014 8.359 × 1013 5.8118858 12
GSA 2.4655242 2.0954226 2.7834667 0.1973298 2.4959644 10
PSO 4.726 × 1013 4.0927486 2.861 × 1014 9.026 × 1013 6.881908 13
GA 1.16 × 1013 2.7924716 1.255 × 1014 3.561 × 1013 5.7774686 11
RSA 0.0500841 0.3128747 14.815225 0.0131729
MPA 0.0516908 0.3567595 11.286517 0.0126652
TSA 0.0509675 0.3395949 12.379923 0.0126825
WOA 0.0511504 0.3439031 12.084068 0.0126709
MVO
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 0.0500841 0.3188461 13.963843 0.0127523 48 of 54
Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 40 of 46
GWO 0.0519643 0.363356 10.914486 0.0126708
TLBO 0.0682172 0.9079231 2.462505 0.0176238
GSA 0.0552141 0.4436774 7.7157776 0.0130859
PSO 0.0681323 0.9047167 2.462505 0.0175188
GA 0.0686985 0.9159566 2.462505 0.0180295

Table 15. Statistical results of optimization algorithms on the tension/compression spring design
problem.

Algorithm Mean Best Worst Std Median Rank

KOA 0.0126019 0.0126019 0.0126019 6.88 × 10−18 0.0126019 1
WSO 0.0126766 0.0126652 0.0128288 3.645 × 10 −5 0.0126657 3
AVOA 0.0133542 0.0126703 0.0141777 0.0005668 0.0132848 8
RSA 0.013256 0.0131729 0.0134024 7.054 × 10−5 0.0132346 6
MPA 0.0126652 0.0126652 0.0126652 2.90 × 10−9 0.0126652 2
TSA 0.0129674 0.0126825 0.0135406 0.0002456 0.0128926 5
WOA 0.0132825 0.0126709 0.0145297 0.0006143 0.013081 7
MVO 0.0165382
Figure 0.0127523
13. KOA’s performance 0.0179998
convergence curve on welded 0.0016747
beam 0.0174694 9
Figure 13. KOA’s performance convergence curve ondesign.
welded beam design.
GWO 0.0127239 0.0126708 0.012951 5.622 × 10−5 0.0127214 4
TLBO 5.5.
0.0181642 Tension/Compression
0.0176238 Spring Design
0.0187814 0.000364 0.0181192 10
5.5. Tension/Compression Spring Design
GSA 0.0195368 Tension/compression
0.0130859
Tension/compression
spring design is an engineering subject of real-world
0.0323907
spring 0.0043308 0.0191036 11applica-
applications with the aim of minimizing the design
weight ofistension/compression
an engineering subject of real-world
spring. The
PSO 2.127 × schematic
10tions
13
with 0.0175188
the aim
of welded ofdesign
beam 3.774
minimizing × 10
is shownthe
14
weight
in Figure 8.445 × 10 13 0.0175188
of tension/compression
14 and its mathematical model isspring.
as 13
The schematic
GA 1.661 × 10of welded
12
follows [38]: 0.0180295
beam design is1.719shown × 10
in Figure 4.961
13 14 and × 10 12 0.0257708
its mathematical 12 [38]:
model is as follows
Consider: 𝑋 = 𝑥 , 𝑥 , 𝑥 = 𝑑, 𝐷, 𝑃 .
Minimize: 𝑓(𝑥) = (𝑥 + 2)𝑥 𝑥 .
Subject to:
𝑥 𝑥 4𝑥 − 𝑥 𝑥 1
𝑔 (𝑥) = 1 − ≤ 0, 𝑔 (𝑥) = + − 1 ≤ 0,
71,785𝑥 12,566(𝑥 𝑥 ) 5108𝑥
.
𝑔 (𝑥) = 1 − ≤ 0, 𝑔 (𝑥) = − 1 ≤ 0.
.

with
0.05 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 2, 0.25 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 1.3 and 2 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 15.
Figure 14. Schematic
The optimization of tension/compression
results spring
of tension/compression design.
spring design using KOA and
Figure 14. Schematic of tension/compression spring design.
competitor algorithms are reported in Tables 14 and 15. Based on the results, KOA has
provided the optimal design with the values of design variables equal to (0.0516891,
Consider: X = [ x , x2 , x3 ] = [objective
0.3567177, 11.288966) and the 1corresponding
d, D, Pfunction
]. value equal to (0.0126019).
Minimize:
The convergence ) = (tox3the
curvef (ofxKOA 2) x2 x12solution
+optimal . for the tension/compression spring
Subjectisto:
design problem plotted in Figure 15. The analysis of the simulation results shows that
KOA has provided superior performance in dealing with tension/compression spring
design by providing better results x3compared
x
2 3
to the competitor4x
2
2−x x
algorithms.
1 2 1
g1 ( x ) = 1 − ≤ 0, g2 ( x ) = 3

+ − 1 ≤ 0,
71, 785x
Table 14. Performance of optimization
4
algorithms
1 12, 566 xspring
on the tension/compression 5108x12
2 x1 design
problem.
140.45x1 x + x2
Algorithm
Optimum
g3 (Variables
x) = 1 − ≤ 0, = 1 Cost
g4 ( x )Optimum − 1 ≤ 0.
d D x22 x3P 1.5
KOA 0.0516891 0.3567177 11.288966 0.0126019
WSO
with
0.051687 0.3566687 11.291844 0.0126652
AVOA 0.0511766 0.05 ≤ x1 ≤ 12.043632
0.3445208 2, 0.25 ≤ x2 ≤ 1.3 and 2 ≤ x3
0.0126703 ≤ 15.
The optimization results of tension/compression spring design using KOA and com-
petitor algorithms are reported in Tables 14 and 15. Based on the results, KOA has provided
the optimal design with the values of design variables equal to (0.0516891, 0.3567177,
11.288966) and the corresponding objective function value equal to (0.0126019). The con-
vergence curve of KOA to the optimal solution for the tension/compression spring design
problem is plotted in Figure 15. The analysis of the simulation results shows that KOA
has provided superior performance in dealing with tension/compression spring design by
providing better results compared to the competitor algorithms.
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 49 of 54

Table 14. Performance of optimization algorithms on the tension/compression spring design problem.

Optimum Variables
Algorithm Optimum Cost
d D P
KOA 0.0516891 0.3567177 11.288966 0.0126019
WSO 0.051687 0.3566687 11.291844 0.0126652
AVOA 0.0511766 0.3445208 12.043632 0.0126703
RSA 0.0500841 0.3128747 14.815225 0.0131729
MPA 0.0516908 0.3567595 11.286517 0.0126652
TSA 0.0509675 0.3395949 12.379923 0.0126825
WOA 0.0511504 0.3439031 12.084068 0.0126709
MVO 0.0500841 0.3188461 13.963843 0.0127523
GWO 0.0519643 0.363356 10.914486 0.0126708
TLBO 0.0682172 0.9079231 2.462505 0.0176238
GSA 0.0552141 0.4436774 7.7157776 0.0130859
PSO 0.0681323 0.9047167 2.462505 0.0175188
GA 0.0686985 0.9159566 2.462505 0.0180295

Table 15. Statistical results of optimization algorithms on the tension/compression spring design
problem.

Algorithm Mean Best Worst Std Median Rank

KOA 0.0126019 0.0126019 0.0126019 6.88 × 10−18 0.0126019 1
WSO 0.0126766 0.0126652 0.0128288 3.645 × 10−5 0.0126657 3
AVOA 0.0133542 0.0126703 0.0141777 0.0005668 0.0132848 8
RSA 0.013256 0.0131729 0.0134024 7.054 × 10−5 0.0132346 6
MPA 0.0126652 0.0126652 0.0126652 2.90 × 10−9 0.0126652 2
TSA 0.0129674 0.0126825 0.0135406 0.0002456 0.0128926 5
WOA 0.0132825 0.0126709 0.0145297 0.0006143 0.013081 7
MVO 0.0165382 0.0127523 0.0179998 0.0016747 0.0174694 9
GWO 0.0127239 0.0126708 0.012951 5.622 × 10−5 0.0127214 4
TLBO 0.0181642 0.0176238 0.0187814 0.000364 0.0181192 10
GSA 0.0195368 0.0130859 0.0323907 0.0043308 0.0191036 11
PSO 2.127 × 1013 0.0175188 3.774 × 1014 8.445 × 1013 0.0175188 13
Biomimetics 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 42 of 46
GA 1.661 × 1012 0.0180295 1.719 × 1013 4.961 × 1012 0.0257708 12

Figure 15. 15.

Figure KOA’s performance
KOA’s convergence
performance curve on
convergence tension/compression
curve spring.
on tension/compression spring.

6. Conclusions and Future Works

In this paper, a new metaheuristic algorithm named the Kookaburra Optimization
Algorithm (KOA) was introduced, which has applications in dealing with optimization
issues. The fundamental inspiration for KOA is derived from the strategy of kookaburras
when hunting and their behavior to ensure that the prey is killed. The theory of KOA was
stated and mathematically modeled in the two phases of exploration and exploitation,
which are based on simulating the natural behaviors of kookaburras. The effectiveness of
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 50 of 54

6. Conclusions and Future Works

In this paper, a new metaheuristic algorithm named the Kookaburra Optimization Al-
gorithm (KOA) was introduced, which has applications in dealing with optimization issues.
The fundamental inspiration for KOA is derived from the strategy of kookaburras when
hunting and their behavior to ensure that the prey is killed. The theory of KOA was stated
and mathematically modeled in the two phases of exploration and exploitation, which are
based on simulating the natural behaviors of kookaburras. The effectiveness of the pro-
posed KOA approach in handling optimization tasks was evaluated on the CEC 2017 test
suite for problem dimensions equal to 10, 30, 50, and 100. The optimization results showed
that KOA, with its high ability in exploration, exploitation, and establishing a balance
between them, has been able to provide suitable solutions for the benchmark functions. The
quality of KOA in the optimization process was compared with the performance of the 12
well-known metaheuristic algorithms. Based on the simulation results, by achieving better
results for most benchmark functions, KOA provided superior performance compared to
competitor algorithms in the handling of the CEC 2017 test suite. Also, the implementation
of KOA on 22 constrained optimization problems from the CEC 2011 test suite, as well
as 4 engineering design problems, indicated the capability of the proposed approach in
addressing real-world applications.
By introducing the proposed approach of KOA, several research tasks are proposed for
further studies. Designing binary and multi-purpose versions of KOA is one of the most
special research proposals of this study. Also, using KOA to solve optimization problems in
different sciences and real-world applications are other research proposals for future studies.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.D. and Z.M.; methodology, M.D., Z.M. and G.B.;
software, M.D., O.P.M., A.E.A., G.D. and G.B.; validation, G.D., A.E.A., O.P.M., G.B. and Z.M.; formal
analysis, M.D., O.P.M., A.E.A. and G.D.; investigation, Z.M. and A.E.A.; resources, G.D. and G.B.;
data curation, M.D. and Z.M.; writing—original draft preparation, M.D. and Z.M.; writing—review
and editing, O.P.M., G.D., A.E.A. and G.B.; visualization, G.B. and O.P.M.; supervision, M.D.; project
administration, Z.M., O.P.M. and G.D.; funding acquisition, O.P.M. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: “O.P. Malik” (the fourth author) has paid APC from his NSERC, Canada, research grant.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The financial support of NSERC Canada through a research grant is acknowledged.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
The information of CEC 2017 test suite is determined in Table A1.

Table A1. Information of the CEC 2017 test functions.

Functions Fmin
C1 Shifted and Rotated Bent Cigar Function 100
Unimodal functions C2 Shifted and Rotated Sum of Different Power Function 200
C3 Shifted and Rotated Zakharov Function 300
C4 Shifted and Rotated Rosenbrock’s Function 400
C5 Shifted and Rotated Rastrigin’s Function 500
Simple multimodal functions
C6 Shifted and Rotated Expanded Scaffer’s Function 600
C7 Shifted and Rotated Lunacek Bi_Rastrigin Function 700
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 51 of 54

Table A1. Cont.

Functions Fmin
C8 Shifted and Rotated Non-Continuous Rastrigin’s Function 800
Simple multimodal functions C9 Shifted and Rotated Levy Function 900
C10 Shifted and Rotated Schwefel’s Function 1000
C11 Hybrid Function 1 (N = 3) 1100
C12 Hybrid Function 2 (N = 3) 1200
C13 Hybrid Function 3 (N = 3) 1300
C14 Hybrid Function 4 (N = 4) 1400
C15 Hybrid Function 5 (N = 4) 1500
Hybrid functions
C16 Hybrid Function 6 (N = 4) 1600
C17 Hybrid Function 6 (N = 5) 1700
C18 Hybrid Function 6 (N = 5) 1800
C19 Hybrid Function 6 (N = 5) 1900
C20 Hybrid Function 6 (N = 6) 2000
C21 Composition Function 1 (N = 3) 2100
C22 Composition Function 2 (N = 3) 2200
C23 Composition Function 3 (N = 4) 2300
C24 Composition Function 4 (N = 4) 2400
C25 Composition Function 5 (N = 5) 2500
Composition functions
C26 Composition Function 6 (N = 5) 2600
C27 Composition Function 7 (N = 6) 2700
C28 Composition Function 8 (N = 6) 2800
C29 Composition Function 9 (N = 3) 2900
C30 Composition Function 10 (N = 3) 3000

References
1. Zhao, S.; Zhang, T.; Ma, S.; Chen, M. Dandelion Optimizer: A nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithm for engineering applications.
Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2022, 114, 105075. [CrossRef]
2. Sergeyev, Y.D.; Kvasov, D.; Mukhametzhanov, M. On the efficiency of nature-inspired metaheuristics in expensive global
optimization with limited budget. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 453. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Liberti, L.; Kucherenko, S. Comparison of deterministic and stochastic approaches to global optimization. Int. Trans. Oper. Res.
2005, 12, 263–285. [CrossRef]
4. Koc, I.; Atay, Y.; Babaoglu, I. Discrete tree seed algorithm for urban land readjustment. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2022, 112, 104783.
[CrossRef]
5. Dehghani, M.; Trojovská, E.; Trojovský, P. A new human-based metaheuristic algorithm for solving optimization problems on the
base of simulation of driving training process. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 9924. [CrossRef]
6. Zeidabadi, F.-A.; Dehghani, M.; Trojovský, P.; Hubálovský, Š.; Leiva, V.; Dhiman, G. Archery Algorithm: A Novel Stochastic
Optimization Algorithm for Solving Optimization Problems. Comput. Mater. Contin. 2022, 72, 399–416. [CrossRef]
7. De Armas, J.; Lalla-Ruiz, E.; Tilahun, S.L.; Voß, S. Similarity in metaheuristics: A gentle step towards a comparison methodology.
Nat. Comput. 2022, 21, 265–287. [CrossRef]
8. Dehghani, M.; Montazeri, Z.; Dehghani, A.; Malik, O.P.; Morales-Menendez, R.; Dhiman, G.; Nouri, N.; Ehsanifar, A.; Guerrero,
J.M.; Ramirez-Mendoza, R.A. Binary spring search algorithm for solving various optimization problems. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1286.
[CrossRef]
9. Wang, Z.; Zhang, J.; Li, Z.; Shi, C. On the crashworthiness of bio-inspired hexagonal prismatic tubes under axial compression. Int.
J. Mech. Sci. 2020, 186, 105893. [CrossRef]
10. Li, Z.; Wang, X.; Li, X.; Wang, Z.; Zhai, W. New Class of Multifunctional Bioinspired Microlattice with Excellent Sound Absorption,
Damage Tolerance, and High Specific Strength. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2023, 15, 9940–9952. [CrossRef]
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 52 of 54

11. Dehghani, M.; Montazeri, Z.; Malik, O.P. Energy commitment: A planning of energy carrier based on energy consumption. Electr.
Eng. Electromech. 2019, 69–72. [CrossRef]
12. Dehghani, M.; Mardaneh, M.; Malik, O.P.; Guerrero, J.M.; Sotelo, C.; Sotelo, D.; Nazari-Heris, M.; Al-Haddad, K.; Ramirez-
Mendoza, R.A. Genetic Algorithm for Energy Commitment in a Power System Supplied by Multiple Energy Carriers. Sustainability
2020, 12, 10053. [CrossRef]
13. Dehghani, M.; Mardaneh, M.; Malik, O.P.; Guerrero, J.M.; Morales-Menendez, R.; Ramirez-Mendoza, R.A.; Matas, J.; Abusorrah, A.
Energy Commitment for a Power System Supplied by Multiple Energy Carriers System using Following Optimization Algorithm.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5862. [CrossRef]
14. Ehsanifar, A.; Dehghani, M.; Allahbakhshi, M. Calculating the leakage inductance for transformer inter-turn fault detection using
finite element method. In Proceedings of the 2017 Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering (ICEE), Tehran, Iran, 2–4 May
2017; IEEE: Tehran, Iran, 2017; pp. 1372–1377.
15. Dehghani, M.; Montazeri, Z.; Malik, O. Optimal sizing and placement of capacitor banks and distributed generation in distribution
systems using spring search algorithm. Int. J. Emerg. Electr. Power Syst. 2020, 21, 20190217. [CrossRef]
16. Dehghani, M.; Montazeri, Z.; Malik, O.P.; Al-Haddad, K.; Guerrero, J.M.; Dhiman, G. A New Methodology Called Dice Game
Optimizer for Capacitor Placement in Distribution Systems. Electr. Eng. Electromech. 2020, 61–64. [CrossRef]
17. Dehbozorgi, S.; Ehsanifar, A.; Montazeri, Z.; Dehghani, M.; Seifi, A. Line loss reduction and voltage profile improvement in radial
distribution networks using battery energy storage system. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 4th International Conference on
Knowledge-Based Engineering and Innovation (KBEI), Tehran, Iran, 22 December 2017; IEEE: Tehran, Iran, 2017; pp. 215–219.
18. Montazeri, Z.; Niknam, T. Optimal utilization of electrical energy from power plants based on final energy consumption using
gravitational search algorithm. Electr. Eng. Electromech. 2018, 70–73. [CrossRef]
19. Dehghani, M.; Mardaneh, M.; Montazeri, Z.; Ehsanifar, A.; Ebadi, M.J.; Grechko, O.M. Spring search algorithm for simultaneous
placement of distributed generation and capacitors. Electr. Eng. Electromech. 2018, 68–73. [CrossRef]
20. Dehghani, M.; Montazeri, Z.; Ehsanifar, A.; Seifi, A.R.; Ebadi, M.J.; Grechko, O.M. Planning of energy carriers based on final
energy consumption using dynamic programming and particle swarm optimization. Electr. Eng. Electromech. 2018, 62–71.
[CrossRef]
21. Montazeri, Z.; Niknam, T. Energy carriers management based on energy consumption. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 4th
International Conference on Knowledge-Based Engineering and Innovation (KBEI), Tehran, Iran, 22 December 2017; IEEE: Tehran,
Iran, 2017; pp. 539–543.
22. Trojovská, E.; Dehghani, M.; Trojovský, P. Zebra Optimization Algorithm: A New Bio-Inspired Optimization Algorithm for
Solving Optimization Algorithm. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 49445–49473. [CrossRef]
23. Wolpert, D.H.; Macready, W.G. No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 1997, 1, 67–82. [CrossRef]
24. Dorigo, M.; Maniezzo, V.; Colorni, A. Ant system: Optimization by a colony of cooperating agents. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.
Part B 1996, 26, 29–41. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Karaboga, D.; Basturk, B. Artificial bee colony (ABC) optimization algorithm for solving constrained optimization problems.
In Proceedings of the International Fuzzy Systems Association World Congress, Cancun, Mexico, 18–21 June 2017; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 789–798.
26. Kennedy, J.; Eberhart, R. Particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of the ICNN’95—International Conference on Neural
Networks, Perth, WA, Australia, 27 November–1 December 1995; IEEE: Perth, WA, Australia, 1995; Volume 4, pp. 1942–1948.
27. Yang, X.-S. Firefly algorithm, stochastic test functions and design optimisation. Int. J. Bio-Inspired Comput. 2010, 2, 78–84.
[CrossRef]
28. Dehghani, M.; Trojovský, P.; Malik, O.P. Green Anaconda Optimization: A New Bio-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithm for Solving
Optimization Problems. Biomimetics 2023, 8, 121. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Dehghani, M.; Montazeri, Z.; Trojovská, E.; Trojovský, P. Coati Optimization Algorithm: A new bio-inspired metaheuristic
algorithm for solving optimization problems. Knowl. Based Syst. 2023, 259, 110011. [CrossRef]
30. Trojovský, P.; Dehghani, M. Pelican Optimization Algorithm: A Novel Nature-Inspired Algorithm for Engineering Applications.
Sensors 2022, 22, 855. [CrossRef]
31. Abdollahzadeh, B.; Gharehchopogh, F.S.; Mirjalili, S. African vultures optimization algorithm: A new nature-inspired metaheuris-
tic algorithm for global optimization problems. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2021, 158, 107408. [CrossRef]
32. Braik, M.; Hammouri, A.; Atwan, J.; Al-Betar, M.A.; Awadallah, M.A. White Shark Optimizer: A novel bio-inspired meta-heuristic
algorithm for global optimization problems. Knowl. Based Syst. 2022, 243, 108457. [CrossRef]
33. Jiang, Y.; Wu, Q.; Zhu, S.; Zhang, L. Orca predation algorithm: A novel bio-inspired algorithm for global optimization problems.
Expert Syst. Appl. 2022, 188, 116026. [CrossRef]
34. Mirjalili, S.; Mirjalili, S.M.; Lewis, A. Grey Wolf Optimizer. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2014, 69, 46–61. [CrossRef]
35. Dehghani, M.; Trojovský, P. Serval Optimization Algorithm: A New Bio-Inspired Approach for Solving Optimization Problems.
Biomimetics 2022, 7, 204. [CrossRef]
36. Faramarzi, A.; Heidarinejad, M.; Mirjalili, S.; Gandomi, A.H. Marine Predators Algorithm: A nature-inspired metaheuristic.
Expert Syst. Appl. 2020, 152, 113377. [CrossRef]
37. Trojovský, P.; Dehghani, M. Subtraction-Average-Based Optimizer: A New Swarm-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithm for Solving
Optimization Problems. Biomimetics 2023, 8, 149. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 53 of 54

38. Mirjalili, S.; Lewis, A. The whale optimization algorithm. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2016, 95, 51–67. [CrossRef]
39. Chopra, N.; Ansari, M.M. Golden Jackal Optimization: A Novel Nature-Inspired Optimizer for Engineering Applications. Expert
Syst. Appl. 2022, 198, 116924. [CrossRef]
40. Kaur, S.; Awasthi, L.K.; Sangal, A.L.; Dhiman, G. Tunicate Swarm Algorithm: A new bio-inspired based metaheuristic paradigm
for global optimization. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2020, 90, 103541. [CrossRef]
41. Hashim, F.A.; Houssein, E.H.; Hussain, K.; Mabrouk, M.S.; Al-Atabany, W. Honey Badger Algorithm: New metaheuristic
algorithm for solving optimization problems. Math. Comput. Simul. 2022, 192, 84–110. [CrossRef]
42. Abualigah, L.; Abd Elaziz, M.; Sumari, P.; Geem, Z.W.; Gandomi, A.H. Reptile Search Algorithm (RSA): A nature-inspired
meta-heuristic optimizer. Expert Syst. Appl. 2022, 191, 116158. [CrossRef]
43. Goldberg, D.E.; Holland, J.H. Genetic Algorithms and Machine Learning. Mach. Learn. 1988, 3, 95–99. [CrossRef]
44. Storn, R.; Price, K. Differential evolution–A simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J. Glob.
Optim. 1997, 11, 341–359. [CrossRef]
45. De Castro, L.N.; Timmis, J.I. Artificial immune systems as a novel soft computing paradigm. Soft Comput. 2003, 7, 526–544.
[CrossRef]
46. Beyer, H.-G.; Schwefel, H.-P. Evolution strategies—A comprehensive introduction. Nat. Comput. 2002, 1, 3–52. [CrossRef]
47. Reynolds, R.G. An introduction to cultural algorithms. In Evolutionary Programming—Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference;
World Scientific Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1994; pp. 131–139.
48. Koza, J.R.; Koza, J.R. Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection; MIT Press: Cambridge,
MA, USA, 1992; Volume 1.
49. Kirkpatrick, S.; Gelatt, C.D.; Vecchi, M.P. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 1983, 220, 671–680. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50. Dehghani, M.; Samet, H. Momentum search algorithm: A new meta-heuristic optimization algorithm inspired by momentum
conservation law. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 1720. [CrossRef]
51. Dehghani, M.; Montazeri, Z.; Dhiman, G.; Malik, O.; Morales-Menendez, R.; Ramirez-Mendoza, R.A.; Dehghani, A.; Guerrero, J.M.;
Parra-Arroyo, L. A spring search algorithm applied to engineering optimization problems. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6173. [CrossRef]
52. Rashedi, E.; Nezamabadi-Pour, H.; Saryazdi, S. GSA: A gravitational search algorithm. Inf. Sci. 2009, 179, 2232–2248. [CrossRef]
53. Eskandar, H.; Sadollah, A.; Bahreininejad, A.; Hamdi, M. Water cycle algorithm–A novel metaheuristic optimization method for
solving constrained engineering optimization problems. Comput. Struct. 2012, 110, 151–166. [CrossRef]
54. Hatamlou, A. Black hole: A new heuristic optimization approach for data clustering. Inf. Sci. 2013, 222, 175–184. [CrossRef]
55. Mirjalili, S.; Mirjalili, S.M.; Hatamlou, A. Multi-verse optimizer: A nature-inspired algorithm for global optimization. Neural
Comput. Appl. 2016, 27, 495–513. [CrossRef]
56. Hashim, F.A.; Hussain, K.; Houssein, E.H.; Mabrouk, M.S.; Al-Atabany, W. Archimedes optimization algorithm: A new
metaheuristic algorithm for solving optimization problems. Appl. Intell. 2021, 51, 1531–1551. [CrossRef]
57. Faramarzi, A.; Heidarinejad, M.; Stephens, B.; Mirjalili, S. Equilibrium optimizer: A novel optimization algorithm. Knowl. Based
Syst. 2020, 191, 105190. [CrossRef]
58. Pereira, J.L.J.; Francisco, M.B.; Diniz, C.A.; Oliver, G.A.; Cunha, S.S., Jr.; Gomes, G.F. Lichtenberg algorithm: A novel hybrid
physics-based meta-heuristic for global optimization. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 170, 114522. [CrossRef]
59. Kaveh, A.; Dadras, A. A novel meta-heuristic optimization algorithm: Thermal exchange optimization. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2017, 110,
69–84. [CrossRef]
60. Cuevas, E.; Oliva, D.; Zaldivar, D.; Pérez-Cisneros, M.; Sossa, H. Circle detection using electro-magnetism optimization. Inf. Sci.
2012, 182, 40–55. [CrossRef]
61. Wei, Z.; Huang, C.; Wang, X.; Han, T.; Li, Y. Nuclear reaction optimization: A novel and powerful physics-based algorithm for
global optimization. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 66084–66109. [CrossRef]
62. Hashim, F.A.; Houssein, E.H.; Mabrouk, M.S.; Al-Atabany, W.; Mirjalili, S. Henry gas solubility optimization: A novel physics-
based algorithm. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2019, 101, 646–667. [CrossRef]
63. Rao, R.V.; Savsani, V.J.; Vakharia, D. Teaching–learning-based optimization: A novel method for constrained mechanical design
optimization problems. Comput. Aided Des. 2011, 43, 303–315. [CrossRef]
64. Matoušová, I.; Trojovský, P.; Dehghani, M.; Trojovská, E.; Kostra, J. Mother optimization algorithm: A new human-based
metaheuristic approach for solving engineering optimization. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 10312. [CrossRef]
65. Dehghani, M.; Trojovský, P. Teamwork Optimization Algorithm: A New Optimization Approach for Function Minimiza-
tion/Maximization. Sensors 2021, 21, 4567. [CrossRef]
66. Dehghani, M.; Trojovská, E.; Zuščák, T. A new human-inspired metaheuristic algorithm for solving optimization problems based
on mimicking sewing training. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 17387. [CrossRef]
67. Dehghani, M.; Mardaneh, M.; Guerrero, J.M.; Malik, O.P.; Ramirez-Mendoza, R.A.; Matas, J.; Vasquez, J.C.; Parra-Arroyo, L. A new
“Doctor and Patient” optimization algorithm: An application to energy commitment problem. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5791. [CrossRef]
68. Dehghani, M.; Mardaneh, M.; Malik, O. FOA:’Following’Optimization Algorithm for solving Power engineering optimization
problems. J. Oper. Autom. Power Eng. 2020, 8, 57–64.
69. Braik, M.; Ryalat, M.H.; Al-Zoubi, H. A novel meta-heuristic algorithm for solving numerical optimization problems: Ali Baba
and the forty thieves. Neural Comput. Appl. 2022, 34, 409–455. [CrossRef]
Biomimetics 2023, 8, 470 54 of 54

70. Trojovská, E.; Dehghani, M.; Leiva, V. Drawer Algorithm: A New Metaheuristic Approach for Solving Optimization Problems in
Engineering. Biomimetics 2023, 8, 239. [CrossRef]
71. Trojovský, P.; Dehghani, M. A new optimization algorithm based on mimicking the voting process for leader selection. PeerJ
Comput. Sci. 2022, 8, e976. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
72. Trojovská, E.; Dehghani, M. A new human-based metahurestic optimization method based on mimicking cooking training. Sci.
Rep. 2022, 12, 14861. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
73. Al-Betar, M.A.; Alyasseri, Z.A.A.; Awadallah, M.A.; Abu Doush, I. Coronavirus herd immunity optimizer (CHIO). Neural Comput.
Appl. 2021, 33, 5011–5042. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
74. Ayyarao, T.L.; RamaKrishna, N.; Elavarasam, R.M.; Polumahanthi, N.; Rambabu, M.; Saini, G.; Khan, B.; Alatas, B. War Strategy
Optimization Algorithm: A New Effective Metaheuristic Algorithm for Global Optimization. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 25073–25105.
[CrossRef]
75. Mohamed, A.W.; Hadi, A.A.; Mohamed, A.K. Gaining-sharing knowledge based algorithm for solving optimization problems: A
novel nature-inspired algorithm. Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern. 2020, 11, 1501–1529. [CrossRef]
76. Dehghani, M.; Mardaneh, M.; Guerrero, J.M.; Malik, O.; Kumar, V. Football game based optimization: An application to solve
energy commitment problem. Int. J. Intell. Eng. Syst. 2020, 13, 514–523. [CrossRef]
77. Moghdani, R.; Salimifard, K. Volleyball premier league algorithm. Appl. Soft Comput. 2018, 64, 161–185. [CrossRef]
78. Zeidabadi, F.A.; Dehghani, M. POA: Puzzle Optimization Algorithm. Int. J. Intell. Eng. Syst. 2022, 15, 273–281.
79. Dehghani, M.; Montazeri, Z.; Givi, H.; Guerrero, J.M.; Dhiman, G. Darts game optimizer: A new optimization technique based on
darts game. Int. J. Intell. Eng. Syst. 2020, 13, 286–294. [CrossRef]
80. Montazeri, Z.; Niknam, T.; Aghaei, J.; Malik, O.P.; Dehghani, M.; Dhiman, G. Golf Optimization Algorithm: A New Game-Based
Metaheuristic Algorithm and Its Application to Energy Commitment Problem Considering Resilience. Biomimetics 2023, 8, 386.
[CrossRef]
81. Dehghani, M.; Montazeri, Z.; Malik, O.P. DGO: Dice game optimizer. Gazi Univ. J. Sci. 2019, 32, 871–882. [CrossRef]
82. Dehghani, M.; Montazeri, Z.; Malik, O.P.; Ehsanifar, A.; Dehghani, A. OSA: Orientation search algorithm. Int. J. Ind. Electron.
Control Optim. 2019, 2, 99–112.
83. Dehghani, M.; Montazeri, Z.; Saremi, S.; Dehghani, A.; Malik, O.P.; Al-Haddad, K.; Guerrero, J.M. HOGO: Hide objects game
optimization. Int. J. Intell. Eng. Syst. 2020, 13, 216–225. [CrossRef]
84. Doumari, S.A.; Givi, H.; Dehghani, M.; Malik, O.P. Ring Toss Game-Based Optimization Algorithm for Solving Various Optimiza-
tion Problems. Int. J. Intell. Eng. Syst. 2021, 14, 545–554. [CrossRef]
85. Wang, L.; Shi, D.; Zhang, B.; Li, G.; Helal, W.M.K.; Qi, M. Deep learning driven real time topology optimization based on
improved convolutional block attention (Cba-U-Net) model. Eng. Anal. Bound. Elem. 2023, 147, 112–124. [CrossRef]
86. Sun, Y.; Zong, C.; Pancheri, F.; Chen, T.; Lueth, T.C. Design of topology optimized compliant legs for bio-inspired quadruped
robots. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 4875. [CrossRef]
87. Ma, C.; Pu, R.; Wu, L.; Zhang, L.; Lu, G. Lightweight Design of a Support Based on Topology Optimization and 3D Printing. IOP
Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 332, 042044. [CrossRef]
88. Yang, R.; Brice, B.; Ryan, U. A new Caryospora coccidian species (Apicomplexa: Eimeriidae) from the laughing kookaburra
(Dacelo novaeguineae). Exp. Parasitol. 2014, 145, 68–73. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
89. Simpson, K.; Day, N.; Trusler, P. Field Guide to the Birds of Australia, 6th ed.; Penguin Books Australia Ltd.: Melbourne, VIC,
Australia, 1999.
90. Campbell, B. Nocturnal Foraging by Kookaburras. Aust. Field Ornithol. 2001, 19, 104–105.
91. Awad, N.; Ali, M.; Liang, J.; Qu, B.; Suganthan, P. Problem Definitions and Evaluation Criteria for the CEC 2017 Special Session
and Competition on Single Objective Real-Parameter Numerical Optimization; Technical Report; Nanyang Technological University:
Singapore, 2016.
92. Wilcoxon, F. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. In Breakthroughs in Statistics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
1992; pp. 196–202.
93. Das, S.; Suganthan, P.N. Problem Definitions and Evaluation Criteria for CEC 2011 Competition on Testing Evolutionary Algorithms on
Real World Optimization Problems; Technical Report; Jadavpur University: Kolkata, India, 2010; pp. 341–359.
94. Kannan, B.; Kramer, S.N. An augmented Lagrange multiplier based method for mixed integer discrete continuous optimization
and its applications to mechanical design. J. Mech. Des. 1994, 116, 405–411. [CrossRef]
95. Gandomi, A.H.; Yang, X.-S. Benchmark problems in structural optimization. In Computational Optimization, Methods and Algorithms;
Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 259–281.
96. Mezura-Montes, E.; Coello, C.A.C. Useful infeasible solutions in engineering optimization with evolutionary algorithms. In
Proceedings of the Mexican International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Monterrey, Mexico, 14–18 November 2005;
Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; pp. 652–662.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.