sensors

Article
Improved Grey Wolf Optimization Algorithm and Application
Yuxiang Hou 1,2 , Huanbing Gao 1,2, *, Zijian Wang 1,2 and Chuansheng Du 1,2

1 School of Information and Electrical Engineering, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan 250101, China;
[email protected] (Y.H.); [email protected] (Z.W.); [email protected] (C.D.)
2 Shandong Key Laboratory of Intelligent Building Technology, Jinan 250101, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: This paper proposed an improved Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO) to resolve the problem of
instability and convergence accuracy when GWO is used as a meta-heuristic algorithm with strong
optimal search capability in the path planning for mobile robots. We improved chaotic tent mapping
to initialize the wolves to enhance the global search ability and used a nonlinear convergence factor
based on the Gaussian distribution change curve to balance the global and local searchability. In
addition, an improved dynamic proportional weighting strategy is proposed that can update the
positions of grey wolves so that the convergence of this algorithm can be accelerated. The proposed
improved GWO algorithm results are compared with the other eight algorithms through several
benchmark function test experiments and path planning experiments. The experimental results show
that the improved GWO has higher accuracy and faster convergence speed.

Keywords: Grey Wolf Optimizer; tent mapping; convergence factor; path planning

1. Introduction
Citation: Hou, Y.; Gao, H.; Wang, Z.; Path planning is widely used in mobile robot navigation, which of the aim is to find
Du, C. Improved Grey Wolf an optimal trajectory that connects the starting point with the target point while avoiding
Optimization Algorithm and collisions with obstacles [1,2]. There are many commonly used algorithms, such as A*
Application. Sensors 2022, 22, 3810. algorithm [3], particle swarm algorithm (PSO) [4,5], genetic algorithm (GA) [6], and grey
https://doi.org/10.3390/s22103810 wolf algorithm (GWO) [7–9].
Academic Editors: Luis Payá, Oscar GWO is a new pack intelligence optimization algorithm that is widely used in many
Reinoso García and Helder Jesus significant fields. It mainly imitates the grey wolf race pack’s hierarchical pattern and hunt-
Araújo ing behavior and achieves optimization through the wolf pack’s tracking, encircling, and
pouncing behaviors. Compared with traditional optimization algorithms such as PSO and
Received: 27 April 2022
GA, GWO has the advantages of fewer parameters, simple principles, and implementing
Accepted: 16 May 2022
easily. However, GWO has the disadvantages of slow convergence speed, low solution
Published: 17 May 2022
accuracy, and easy to fall into the local optimum. For this reason, many scholars have made
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral many improvements. Yang Zhang [10] proposed MGWO, which introduced an exponential
with regard to jurisdictional claims in regular convergence factor strategy, an adaptive update strategy, and a dynamic weighting
published maps and institutional affil- strategy to improve the GWO search capability. Min Wang [11] proposed NGWO, which
iations. used reverse learning of the initial racial group and introduced a nonlinear convergence
factor to improve the algorithm search capability. Luis Rodriguez [12] proposed the Grey
Wolf algorithm (GWO-fuzzy) based on a fuzzy hierarchical operator and compared two
proportional weighting strategies. Saremi [13] proposed the grey Wolf Algorithm for Evolu-
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
tionary Population Dynamics (GWO-EPD), which focuses on the location change of poorly
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
adapted grey wolf individuals to improve search accuracy. Qiuping Wang [14] proposed an
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
improved grey wolf algorithm (CGWO), which uses the cosine law to vary the convergence
conditions of the Creative Commons
factor to improve the searchability, and introduces a proportional weight based on the
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// step Euclidean distance to update the position of the grey wolf to speed up the conver-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ gence speed. Shipeng Wang [15] proposed a new hybrid algorithm (FWGWO), which
4.0/). combines the advantages of both algorithms and effectively achieves the global optimum.

Sensors 2022, 22, 3810. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22103810 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2022, 22, 3810 2 of 19

In order to effectively improve the coverage of a wireless sensor network in the monitor-
ing area, a coverage optimization algorithm for wireless sensor networks with a Virtual
Force-Lévy-embedded Grey Wolf Optimization (VFLGWO) algorithm is proposed [16].
Although the GWO algorithm has been widely used in various engineering problems,
such as numerical simulation and stability domains [17,18], classification of data sets,
feature acquiring selection, etc., it has been less applied in mobile robot path planning. The
research object is the path planning of mobile robots. The shortest path is the objective
function, the environment is the constraint condition, and the grey wolf optimization
algorithm applies to the path planning of mobile robots to avoid obstacles. To address
the defects of the gray wolf optimization algorithm in solving the path planning problem
of mobile robots, such as falling into local extremes, poor stability, and poor local search
capability. Summarizing the above research results, we know that there are three factors
determining the performance of the grey wolf algorithm in finding the best path: the
initialized wolf pack, the convergence factor, and the proportional weighting strategy.
In this paper, we mainly improve these three aspects of GWO. First, initialize the wolf
pack position using improved chaotic tent mapping. The second is applying a nonlinear
convergence factor based on the Gaussian distribution variation to improve the search
capability. Finally, a dynamic weighting strategy is introduced to speed up the convergence.
Several benchmark functions are simulated and compared with various improved GWO
and classical intelligent optimization algorithms to show the effectiveness of the improved
algorithms. The improved GWO has been tested on mobile robot path planning to verify
the algorithm’s practicality.
The contributions of this paper are:
1. An improved GWO algorithm based on a multi-strategy hybrid is proposed.
2. The improved GWO algorithm is applied to the path planning of mobile robot.
3. The performance of the proposed approach is compared with standard GWO, Sparrow
Search Algorithm (SSA), Mayfly Algorithm (MA), Modified Grey Wolf Optimization
Algorithm (MGWO) [10], Novel Grey Wolf Optimization Algorithm (NGWO) [11], A
Fuzzy Hierarchical Operator in the Grey Wolf Optimizer Algorithm (GWO-fuzzy) [12],
and Evolutionary population dynamics and grey wolf optimizer (GWO-EPD) [13].
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 summarizes the related
work. Section 3 describes the deployment scheme of this paper to improve the gray
wolf algorithm. The experimental results are discussed in Section 4. Section 5 concludes
the paper.

2. Related Work
2.1. Research Situation
Path planning is a typical complex multi-aim optimization problem that finds a work-
able or optimal path from the starting point to the goal point under careful consideration of
various environmental conditions. Intelligent algorithms are widely used in such problems
as path planning because of their better robustness.
Research on solving path planning problems using swarm intelligence algorithms is
gradually increasing. For example, Yin Ling [19] fused the improved grey wolf algorithm
with the artificial potential field method to solve the problem of unreachable target points
because of the influence of dynamic obstacles in path planning. Dazhang You [20] combined
GWO with particle swarm algorithm to reduce the cost consumption of path planning by
introducing cooperative quantitative optimization of the grey wolf population. Kumar
R [21] introduced a new technique named modified grey wolf optimization (MGWO)
algorithm to solve the path planning problem for multi-robots. Ge Fawei [22] proposed
the grey wolf fruit fly optimization algorithm (GWFOA), which combines the fruit fly
optimization algorithm (FOA) with GWO for the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) path
planning problem in oil field inspection, resulting in a satisfactory solution for UAV in
complex environments. One more powerful algorithm named variable weight grey wolf
 named variable weight grey wolf optimization (VW-GWO) was rec
Kumar [23] to obtain an optimal solution for the path planning proble

Sensors 2022, 22, 3810 2.2. GWO Algorithm 3 of 19

In 2014, inspired by the predatory behavior of grey wolf packs, S

al. proposed the grey wolf algorithm (GWO) [7]. The algorithm sim
optimization (VW-GWO) was recently proposed by Kumar [23] to obtain an optimal
hunting
solution for and prey-seeking
the path planning problemcharacteristics
of mobile robots. of the grey wolf. Grey wo
group
2.2. GWOof living canines. Each wolf plays a different role in the group
Algorithm
tasks In through
2014, inspiredcooperation
by the predatorybetween
behavior ofwolves. The Seyedali
grey wolf packs, GWO Mirjalili
divided et al.the gre
into four levels of social hierarchy (Figure 1). The first rank is wolf
proposed the grey wolf algorithm (GWO) [7]. The algorithm simulates the unique hunting
and prey-seeking characteristics of the grey wolf. Grey wolves belong to the group of living
deciding
canines. Each onwolf
activities such role
plays a different as inhunting.
the group The second rank
and accomplishes tasks is wolf β, sub
through
and helpsbetween
cooperation makewolves.
decisions
The GWOwith wolftheα,grey
divided also the
wolf best candidate
population for wol
into four levels
is wolf δ, subordinate to wolf α and wolf β, responsible for tasks suc
of social hierarchy (Figure 1). The first rank is wolf α, responsible for deciding on activities
such as hunting. The second rank is wolf β, subordinate to wolf α and helps make decisions
hunting. Thethefourth
with wolf α, also rank for
best candidate wolfα.ω,
is wolf Thethe lowest
third rank,
rank is wolf responsible
δ, subordinate to wolf for m
pack. Grey wolf hunting is divided into tracking, chasing, and ω,
α and wolf β, responsible for tasks such as scouting and hunting. The fourth rank is wolf attackin
the lowest rank, responsible for maintaining the wolf pack. Grey wolf hunting is divided
into tracking, chasing, and attacking prey.

Figure 1. Grey wolf class system.

Figure 1. Grey wolf class system.
During the GWO operation, the positions of wolf α, wolf β, and wolf δ are continuously
updated at each iteration, whose mathematical model is described as:
During the GWO operation, the positions of wolf α, wolf β
continuously updated atDeach
= C • Xiteration, whose mathematical model
p (t) − X (t) ω (1)
is
X ( t + 1) = X p ( t ) − A • D (2)
D | C  X p ( t )  X ( t ) | 
Equation (1) is the distance between the grey wolf and the prey, where t is the number
of current iterations, and Xp (t) and X(t) are the prey’s locations and the grey wolf’s location
X (t  1)  X p (the
at t iterations, respectively. Equation (2) is the formula for updating
t ) location
A  Dof the grey
wolf. A and C are the coefficient vectors, which are calculated by the following equations:
Equation (1) is the distance between the grey wolf and the pr
A = 2a•r − a
number of current iterations, and1 Xp(t) and X(t) are the prey’s loca
(3)

wolf’s location at t iterations,C respectively.

= 2•r2 Equation (2) is the(4)formul
location
where r1 , r2of
arethe greyvectors
random A and[0,C1],are
wolf.between andthe coefficient
the primary role is vectors,
to increase which
the ar
following equations:
randomness of the grey wolf movement. a represents the convergence factor, which will
decay linearly from 2 to 0 as the algorithm progresses, and the linear relationship defines
GWO:
a = 2 − 2t/Tmax A  2a  r1  a (5)

C  2r
where t is the current number of iterations and Tmax is the maximum number of iterations
of the algorithm. 2
Predating in abstract space and accurately identifying the location of prey is impossible.
where r1, r2 hunting
GWO simulated are random
behavior. vectors
Based on thebetween [0, wolf
fitness value, 1], and
α, wolfthe primary
β, and wolf δ rol
were selected to find the prey using the relationship between the three positions and guide
randomness
the other wolves toofmove
the toward
grey the
wolf movement.
prey, as in Figure 2. ɑ represents the convergence
decay linearly from 2 to 0 as the algorithm progresses, and the linear r
GWO:

a  2  2t / T
 Predating in abstract space and accurately identifying the location
impossible. GWO simulated hunting behavior. Based on the fitness value, w
and wolf δ were selected to find the prey using the relationship betwee
Sensors 2022, 22, 3810 4 of 19
positions and guide the other wolves to move toward the prey, as in Figure 2

Figure 2. Prey tracing map.

Figure 2. Prey tracing map.
By iterating several times until the location of the prey is reached, the mathematical
model is as follows:
By iterating several times  Duntil
a =|C1the
• Xα location of the prey is reached, the m

− X|
Dβ = C2 • X β − X (6)
model is as follows: 
Dδ =|C3 • Xδ − X |

 X1 =| Xα  −D Aa1 •D| αC| 1  X   X |



X2 = X β − A2 • D β (7)

X3 =| Xδ 
D | C  X   X |
− A3 • Dδ | 2
 D | C  X X|
X (t + 1) = ( X1 + X2 + X33)/3  (8)

| X   A1  D |
 X 1wolf
where: Da is the distance between wolf pack w and a wolf, DB is the distance between wolf

pack w and β wolf, and Dδ is the distance between pack w and wolf δ. The Equation (7)
X 2 | Xafter
presents the location of the new generation ofwolves  D |
A2update.
 the
 X | X  A  D |
3. Improved GWO Algorithm  3  3 
3.1. Wolf Pack Initialization
Since the initialized grey wolf populationX (t determines
1)  ( X1 whether
 X 2  the ) / 3 path can be
X 3optimal
found and the convergence speed, a diversity of initialized populations can help improve
where: Da is the
the algorithm’s distanceinbetween
performance finding thewolf pack
optimal path.w Traditional
and ɑ wolf, GWODrandomly
B is the distan
wolf pack w and β wolf, and Dδ is the distance between wolf pack w and
initializes wolf pack positions, which primarily affects the search efficiency of the algorithm,
so the initialized populations need to be distributed as evenly as possible in the initial space.
Equation (7) presents the location of the new generation of wolves after the u
In optimization, chaotic mappings positively impact the convergence speed of GWO
algorithms, and chaotic sequences have characteristics such as nonlinearity, ergodicity,
3. and
Improved
preventing GWO Algorithm
algorithms from falling into local optimality. In the last decade, chaotic
mapping has been widely used to help optimize more dynamic and global search spaces
3.1.
forWolf Packalgorithms.
intelligent Initialization
There are over ten mappings: logistic mapping, piecewise-linear
Since the initialized grey wolf population determines whether the optim
chaotic system mapping(pwlcm), singer mapping, and tent mapping. These mappings can
choose the initial value of any number [0, 1] (or according to the chaotic mapping range).
beAmong
foundthem, andlogistic
the mapping
convergence
and tentspeed,
mappingaarediversity
most commonlyof initialized population
used, but logistic
improve
mapping is thelessalgorithm’s performance
ergodic than tent mapping, and the insensitivity
findingofthe optimal
initial parameters path.
leads Tradit
randomly initializes wolf pack positions, which primarily affects the search
to the high density of mapped points at the edges and less density in the middle region,
which is not conducive to optimal path planning. Compared with logistic mapping, tent
themapping
algorithm,
is moreso the initialized
suitable for GWO, butpopulations need
it is a small period. to be distributed
Therefore, a random variableas evenly
inrand()/N
the initial space.
is added to the tent mapping.
In optimization, chaotic mappings positively impact the convergenc
υ•yi,j + rand()/N, 0 ≤ yi,j+1 ≤ 0.5
GWO algorithms, y i,j+1and chaotic sequences have characteristics such
=
υ•(1 − yi,j ) + rand()/N, 0.5 < yi,j+1 ≤ 1
(9) as n

ergodicity, and preventing algorithms from falling into local optimality.

where: i is the grey wolf pack size, j is the chaotic sequence number, rand() belongs to [0, 1],
decade,
v belongschaotic
to [0, 2], mapping has been
N is the population widely
number. usedrand()/N
Introducing to helpcanoptimize more d
maintain the
global search
ergodicity spaces of
and regularity for
tentintelligent
mapping andalgorithms. There
effectively solve the tentare over
falling into ten
smallmappin
mapping, piecewise-linear chaotic system mapping(pwlcm), singer mappin
mapping. These mappings can choose the initial value of any number
according to the chaotic mapping range). Among them, logistic mappin
mapping are most commonly used, but logistic mapping is less ergodi
 sequence.
Finally, map it to the grey Wolf Pack search space.
xi , j  lb  yi , j  (ub  lb )
Sensors 2022, 22, 3810 5 of 19

where lb and ub are the upper and lower limits of the grey wolf pos
introducing random
and unstable periodic pointsvariables in the
during iteration. tent
Figure mapping
3 shows cancurves
the change effectively
of two avo
minor cycle
Tent chaotic pointsThe
mappings. andtentlimit thehas
mapping random values
significantly to areversibility
improved set range. andImprov
uniform distribution compared with the tent. Improved tent mapping steps:
enables
1.
the GWO initialized wolf pack positions to be uniformly
Produce random initial values y0 in (0, 1) with i = 0.
search
2. space.
Calculate iteratively using Equation (9) to produce the sequence.
3. Stop iterating when the iteration reaches the maximum value and saves the sequence.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 3.3. Chaotic
Chaotic mapping
mapping curve. (a) curve. (a) Tent;tent.
Tent; (b) improved (b) improved tent.
Finally, map it to the grey Wolf Pack search space.
3.2. Nonlinear Convergence Factor
xi,j = lb + yi,j •(ub − lb) (10)
In GWO, the excellent or lousy convergence factor affects the
where lb and ub are the upper and lower limits of the grey wolf position, respectively, intro-
search ability
ducing random and local
variables exploitation
in the tent ability. The
mapping can effectively avoid global search
the shortage of minorability i
grey wolf pack to other unopened areas to prevent the wolf pack from
cycle points and limit the random values to a set range. Improving tent mapping enables
the GWO initialized wolf pack positions to be uniformly distributed in the search space.
optimal solutions. Equation (3) |A| > 1, the grey wolf pack needs to
the entire space.
3.2. Nonlinear The
Convergence local exploitation ability represents the accurac
Factor

When |A| < 1, the grey wolf pack wants to surround and attack the p
In GWO, the excellent or lousy convergence factor affects the algorithm’s global
search ability and local exploitation ability. The global search ability is the search of the
ability
grey wolf also
pack todetermines the toconvergence
other unopened areas speed,
prevent the wolf pack so the
from falling converge
into local
significant role. The convergence factor used in traditional GWO
optimal solutions. Equation (3) |A| > 1, the grey wolf pack needs to search the prey in the is a
entire space. The local exploitation ability represents the accuracy in a small area. When
factor,
|A| < 1, decreasing from
the grey wolf pack wants2toto 0. However,
surround and attack it
theis found
prey, and thethat
local the actual
ability also is n
and nonlinearity
determines is more
the convergence speed, so applicable
the convergenceto factor
GWO. has ain addition,
significant the first
role. The
convergence factor used in traditional GWO is a linear decreasing factor, decreasing from 2
mainly for ait global
to 0. However, search
is found that for isoptimal
the actual solutions,
not a linear change, and and the middle
nonlinearity is more and
local development,
applicable with the
to GWO. in addition, different
first stageneeds
of GWOfor convergence
is mainly for a global factors.
search for
Therefore, this paper uses a convergence factor based on the Gau
optimal solutions, and the middle and later stages are for local development, with different
needs for convergence factors.
change curve.
Therefore, this paper uses a convergence factor based on the Gaussian distribution
change curve. 
t2
1 2


 a = φ• √ e 2(Tmax /3) , t ≤ ∂Tmax
2π ( Tmax /3)
t2
(11)
1 2( Tmax /3)2

 a = ϕ• √
 e , ∂Tmax ≤ t < Tmax
2π ( Tmax /3)

where Ø, ϕ is the decreasing function, changes with the number of iterations, and ∂ is the
cut-off. Figure 4 compares the convergence factors of GWO, Improved Gray Wolf Optimizer
Algorithm (MGWO) in literature [10], and improved GWO proposed in this paper.
 the cut-off. Figure 4 compares the convergence fac
Optimizer Algorithm (MGWO) in literature [10], an
Sensors 2022, 22, 3810
paper. 6 of 19

Figure 4. Convergence factor.

FigureThe
4.convergence
Convergence factor.
factor of GWO is linearly decreasing, which does not apply to the
application of the algorithm in practice. The convergence factor of MGWO is based on
the exponential law, which does not guarantee the accuracy of the local search at the late

The convergence factor of GWO is linearly dec

stage of the search. The improved convergence factor is a curve decaying according to the
nonlinear normal distribution, and the convergence factor is more significant and decays

application of the algorithm in practice. The conve

slower at the beginning of the iteration so that the population can better search for the
optimal solution to the unknown global region, thus improving the global searchability in

the exponential law, which does not guarantee the a

the early stage and preventing it from falling into the local optimum. The convergence factor
is more minor and decays more at the later iteration stage to improve the algorithm’s local

stage of the search. The improved convergence fac

search accuracy and convergence speed. The convergence factor is more minor and decays
more in the later iterations, thus improving the local search accuracy and convergence

the nonlinear normal distribution, and the converg

speed. Therefore, the improved convergence factor can better balance GWO global search
and local search ability.

decays slower
3.3. Dynamic Proportionalat theStrategy
Weighting beginning of the iteration so t
for thethe optimal solution
proposed two to the unknown global
The traditional GWO uses Equation (8) as the formula for wolf position update, but
effect is not good. The [24] methods to improve the position update

searchability in the early stage and preventing it f

formula by increasing the weights.

5X + 3X + 2X
The convergence factor is more minor and decays
1 2 3
X ( t + 1) = (12)
10

improve the algorithm’s ,local search accuracy and c

fa + f β + fω fa + f β + fω
W = a fa W = β fβ ,

factor is more minor and decays more in the(13)later

fa + f β + fω
W = ω fω

search accuracy and convergence speed. Therefore,

X1 •Wa + X2 •Wβ + X3 •Wω
X ( t + 1) = Wa + Wβ + Wω

better balance GWO global search andβ, andlocal search a

Equations (12) and (13) set α, β, and w with different coefficients to highlight their
importance, and Equation (12) increases the coefficient 5 for α, 3 for 2 for w according
to the importance. W in Equation (13) denotes the weight of the three wolves, and f denotes
the current adaptation degree of the three wolves and increases the weight of the wolves

3.3. Dynamic Proportional Weighting Strategy

according to the adaptation degree.

The traditional GWO uses Equation (8) as the f

the effect is not good. The [24] proposed two meth
formula by increasing the weights.
Sensors 2022, 22, 3810 7 of 19

Inspired by the above, a proportional weighting strategy based on fitness and location
is proposed to make the grey wolf pack find the optimal solution more precisely:
fa + f β + fω fa + f β + fω
Wa = fa , Wβ = fβ ,
fa + f β + fω
Wω = fω
| X1 | + | X2 | + | X3 | | X1 | + | X2 | + | X3 |
V1 = | X1 |
, V2 = | X2 |
, (14)
| X1 | + | X2 | + | X3 |
V3 = | X3 |
,

V1 •Wa + V2 •Wβ + V3 •Wω

X ( t + 1) = 3

The complexity of the traditional GWO algorithm is O (N × d × Tmax ). The complexity

of the GWO-EPD algorithm is O (2N × d × Tmax ), which is mainly between GWO and
EPD. the complexity of the NGWO algorithm is O (3N × d × Tmax ). The complexity of
the MGWO algorithm is O (N × d × Tmax ), which shows the number of subgroups in the
operation process. The improved GWO algorithm of this paper uses chaotic tent mapping,
which is based on the nonlinear convergence factor of the normal distribution, and the
complexity of this algorithm is O (N2 × d × Tmax ). The algorithm complexity shows that
the algorithm complexity of the improved GWO is higher, but the comparison of the above
benchmark test function shows that the solution accuracy and convergence speed are better
than the other algorithms.
The improved GWO algorithm pseudo-code is shown in Algorithm 1.

Algorithm 1: Pseudo Code of Improved GWO

1 Initialize (Xi (i = 1, 2 . . . , n)) t, Tmax , a, A, C
2 Initialize Tent map x0
3 Calculate the fitness of each wolf
4 Xa = best wolf. X β = second wolf. Xw = third wolf.
5 While t < Tmax
6 Sort fitness of each wolf
7 Update chaotic number, a
8 for each search agent
9 Update position current wolf using
10 end
11 Calculate fitness of each wolf
12 Update Xa , X β , Xw
13 t=t+1
14 end

4. Result
In order to verify the performance of the improved algorithm, 15 international standard
benchmark test functions are selected for simulation experiments. For the fairness of the
results, the relevant parameters of all compared algorithms are configured in Tables 1 and 2
shows the benchmark test functions. GWO, MGWO [10], NGWO [11], GWO-fuzzy [12],
GWO-EPD [13], and the improved GWO in this paper were selected for comparison of
simulation experiments. Simulation experiments were conducted using Matlab on a Lenovo
R7000P, containing a 2020H, 2.90 GHz processor. Table 3 shows the comparison of the mean
and standard deviation of the results of 30 independent runs of the algorithms, and the best
results of the compared algorithms are in bold in the Tables 3 and 4. Furthermore, Figure 5
shows the convergence curves of the six algorithms on some of the tested functions.
Sensors 2022, 22, 3810 8 of 19

Table 1. Parameter Configuration.

Parameter Symbols Meaning Take Value

N Population size 30
Tmax Maximum Iteration 500
a1 Initial value of convergence factor 2
a2 Final value of convergence factor 0

Table 2. Benchmark functions.

Function Dim Scope Solution

n
f1 = ∑ xi2 30 [−100, 100] 0
i =1
n n
f2 = ∑ xi + ∏ | xi | 30 [−10, 10] 0
i =1 i =1
n i 2
f3 = ∑ ( ∑ xj ) 30 [−100, 100] 0
i =1 j −1

f 4 = maxi {| xi |, 1 ≤ i ≤ n}
30 [−100, 100] 0

∑i=1 [100(xi+1 − + (xi − 1) ]

n −1 2 2
f5 = xi2 ) 30 [−30, 30] 0

f 6 = ∑ (b xi + 0.5c)2
d
i =1 30 [−100, 100] 0
n
f7 = ∑ixi4 + random[0, 1) 30 [−1.28, 1.28] 0
i =1
n
f8 = ∑[xi2 − 10 cos(2πxi ) + 10] 30 [−5.12, 5.12] 0
i =1

∑i=1 xi2 )
n
q
1
f 9 = −20 exp(−0.2 n
∑i=1 cos(2πxi ) + 20 + e)
n 30 [−32, 32] 0
− exp( n1
n
∑xi2 − ∏i=1 cos( √x i ) + 1]
1 d
f 10 = 4000
i
30 [−600, 600] 0
i =1
D −1
2 2
f 11 = n {10 sin( πy1 ) +
π
∑ (yi − 1) [1 + 10 sin2 (πyi+1 )] + (yn − 1) } 30 [−50, 50] 0.398
i =1
D
+ ∑ u( xi , 5, 100, 4)
i =1
D −1
f 12 = 0.1{10 sin(3πx1 ) + ∑ ( xi − 1)2 [1 + 10 sin2 (3πxi+1 )] + ( xn − 1)2 } 30 [−50, 50] 3
i =1
D
+ ∑ u( xi , 5, 100, 4)
i =1
D
f 13 = ∑ xi sin(xi ) + 0.1xi 30 [−10, 10] 0
i =1
D 2 D −2
f 14 = 0.5 + ((sin( ∑ xi2 )) − 0.5) · (1 + 0.001( ∑ xi2 )) 30 [−100, 100] 0
i =1 i =1
D
f 15 = ( ∑ [ xi2 + 2xi2+1 − 0.3 cos(3πxi ) − 0.4 cos(4πxi+1 ) + 0.7] 30 [−15, 15] 0
i =1
Sensors 2022, 22, 3810 9 of 19

Table 3. Test functions results.

Function Algorithm Average Value Standard Deviation

GWO 4.389 × 10−27 1.056 × 10−27
Improved GWO 0 0
MGWO 5.996 × 10−199 0
f1
NGWO 9.939 × 10−49 4.754 × 10−48
GWO-fuzzy 9.887 × 10−40 4.977 × 10−40
GWO-EPD 1.501 × 10−31 2.289 × 10−30
GWO 2.167 × 10−5 3.958 × 10−6
Improved GWO 0 0
MGWO 1.617 × 10−102 2.154 × 10−102
f2
NGWO 2.133 × 10−26 1.143 × 10−26
GWO-fuzzy 1.572 × 10−24 1.374 × 10−23
GWO-EPD 1.893 × 10−19 2.358 × 10−20
GWO 1.115 × 10−7 3.463 × 10−5
Improved GWO 0 0
MGWO 6.982 × 10−166 0
f3
NGWO 1.015 × 10−33 3.789 × 10−31
GWO-fuzzy 5.981 × 10−8 3.753 × 10−7
GWO-EPD 4.505 × 10−8 2.456 × 10−6
GWO 8.423 × 10−7 4.583 × 10−7
Improved GWO 0 0
MGWO 5.368 × 10−90 9.664 × 10−89
f4
NGWO 4.414 × 10−20 1.104 × 10−19
GWO-fuzzy 4.995 × 10−9 8.259 × 10−7
GWO-EPD 3.395 × 10−7 7.652 × 10−6
GWO 2.706 × 101 6.824 × 10−1
Improved GWO 2.867 × 101 2.611 × 10−2
MGWO 2.761 × 101 3.917 × 10−1
f5
NGWO 2.719 × 101 5.836 × 10−1
GWO-fuzzy 2.855 × 101 8.518 × 10−1
GWO-EPD 2.818 × 101 8.075 × 10−1
GWO 1.013 2.816 × 10−1
Improved GWO 6.533 × 10−1 2.860 × 10−1
MGWO 5.261 6.381 × 10−1
f6
NGWO 1.829 3.763 × 10−1
GWO-fuzzy 2.324 5.052 × 10−1
GWO-EPD 1.238 4.725 × 10−1
Sensors 2022, 22, 3810 10 of 19

Table 3. Cont.

Function Algorithm Average Value Standard Deviation

GWO 1.154 × 10−3 1.226 × 10−3
Improved GWO 2.961 × 10−7 2.373 × 10−7
MGWO 1.914 × 10−4 1.369 × 10−4
f7
NGWO 1.347 × 10−3 2.747 × 10−4
GWO-fuzzy 1.744 × 10−3 1.047 × 10−3
GWO-EPD 1.646 × 10−3 1.031 × 10−3
GWO 6.934 × 10−12 4.701
Improved GWO 0 0
MGWO 0 0
f8
NGWO 5.684 × 10−14 2.017 × 10−1
GWO-fuzzy 6.130 × 10−1 1.657 × 10−1
GWO-EPD 1.715 × 10−13 3.852
GWO 1.103 × 10−13 1.633 × 10−14
Improved GWO 8.811 × 10−16 1.164 × 10−16
MGWO 4.440 × 10−15 6.486 × 10−15
f9
NGWO 2.930 × 10−14 2.420 × 10−15
GWO-fuzzy 2.930 × 10−14 3.923 × 10−15
GWO-EPD 4.352 × 10−14 6.4963 × 10−15
GWO 7.558 × 10−3 1.412 × 10−2
Improved GWO 0 0
MGWO 0 0
f10
NGWO 0 0
GWO-fuzzy 7.2159 × 10−4 3.0047 × 10−3
GWO-EPD 5.6751 × 10−3 5.7892 × 10−3
GWO 3.8124 × 10−1 6.7824 × 10−2
Improved GWO 2.1331 × 10−3 6.8945 × 10−3
MGWO 5.3122 × 10−1 3.1121 × 10−2
f11
NGWO 1.1021 × 101 3.0031
GWO-fuzzy 1.3811 8.3221
GWO-EPD 1.2254 × 10−2 4.2214 × 10−1
GWO 7.3712 4.1077 × 10−1
Improved GWO 1.2922 × 10−2 7.6012 × 10−2
MGWO 8.3211 3.2454 × 10−1
f12
NGWO 1.6722 × 101 3.1207
GWO-fuzzy 6.1545 × 10−1 4.5512
GWO-EPD 8.21475 × 102 8.1542 × 102
Sensors 2022, 22, 3810 11 of 19

Table 3. Cont.

Function Algorithm Average Value Standard Deviation

GWO 4.5214 × 10−3 2.5784 × 10−3
Improved GWO 2.4457 × 10−6 6.3641 × 10−6
MGWO 7.7541 × 10−5 8.2231 × 10−4
f13
NGWO 2.1441 × 101 8.1601
GWO-fuzzy 1.2215 × 101 2.2232 × 101
GWO-EPD 1.2014 × 10−2 1.2424 × 101
GWO 1.4125 × 10−2 2.3622 × 10−3
Improved GWO 3.1337 × 10−3 1.1184 × 10−3
MGWO 4.3221 × 10−3 1.4752 × 10−3
f14
NGWO 4.8842 × 10−1 2.4821 × 10−3
GWO-fuzzy 1.3315 × 10−2 2.4774 × 10−1
GWO-EPD 3.9454 × 10−1 1.7424 × 10−1
GWO 1.2547 × 10−10 7.2242 × 10−11
Improved GWO 2.4467 × 10−13 1.0871 × 10−14
MGWO 7.2101 × 10−4 7.9945 × 10−5
f15
NGWO 1.5547 × 101 9.0141
GWO-fuzzy 2.4875 × 10−13 1.0401 × 101
GWO-EPD 7.2154 × 102 9.4012 × 101

Table 4. Test functions results.

Function Algorithm Average Value Standard Deviation

Improved GWO 0 0
PSO 3.125 × 10−2 2.716 × 10−2
f1
SSA 1.891 × 10−257 0
MA 1.711 × 10−43 4.254 × 10−43
Improved GWO 0 0
PSO 1.416 × 10−1 3.581−1
f2
SSA 1.435 × 10−93 8.487 × 10−93
MA 2.255 × 102 8.183 × 102
Improved GWO 0 0
PSO 7.225 × 10−2 5.331 × 10−1
f3
SSA 2.821 × 10−180 0
MA 7.318 × 10−5 5149 × 10−4
Improved GWO 0 0
PSO 9.225 × 10−2 1.153 × 10−1
f4
SSA 1.354 × 10−93 6.81 × 10−93
MA 8.154 × 10−7 6.518 × 10−5
Sensors 2022, 22, 3810 12 of 19

Table 4. Cont.

Function Algorithm Average Value Standard Deviation

Improved GWO 2.867 × 101 2.611 × 10−2
PSO 1.314 × 102 1.795 × 102
f5
SSA 2.327 × 10−3 2.189 × 10−3
MA 4.501 × 10−1 5.587 × 10−1
Improved GWO 6.533 2.801 × 10−1
PSO 8.792 × 105 9.782 × 105
f6
SSA 1.047 × 101 4.772
MA 3.128 × 101 8.791 × 102
Improved GWO 2.961 × 10−7 2.373 × 10−7
PSO 2.561 × 10−1 7.844 × 10−1
f7
SSA 1.144 × 10−4 3.581 × 10−3
MA 3.254 × 10−2 4.358 × 10−1
Improved GWO 0 0
PSO 3.015 2.641
f8
SSA 8.161 × 10−185 1.254 × 10−186
MA 2.271 × 10−45 5.174 × 10−44
Improved GWO 8.881 × 10−16 1.604 × 10−16
PSO 3.712 × 10−2 2.816 × 10−1
f9
SSA 8.881 × 10−16 0
MA 4.213 × 10−10 1.576 × 10−9
Improved GWO 0 0
PSO 5.001 × 10−3 2.655 × 10−1
f10
SSA 4.114 × 10−210 3.241 × 10−211
MA 5.260 × 10−140 0
Improved GWO 2.1331 × 10−3 6.8945 × 10−3
PSO 1.8741 4.4411
f11
SSA 1.496 × 10−2 2.106 × 10−2
MA 2.714 × 10−1 1.954 × 10−17
Improved GWO 1.292 × 10−2 7.6012 × 10−2
PSO 8.4152 8.3372
f12
SSA 7.346 × 10−1 1.355 × 10−2
MA 8.214 1.245 × 10−2
Improved GWO 2.4457 × 10−6 6.3641 × 10−6
PSO 1.052 × 102 1.2362
f13
SSA 1.232 × 10−3 1.571 × 10−4
MA 3.247 × 10−3 5.014 × 10−3
Improved GWO 3.1337 × 10−3 1.1184 × 10−3
PSO 3.958 × 10−1 1.541 × 10−2
f14
SSA 9.001 × 10−2 0
MA 3.971 × 10−1 6.051 × 10−1
Sensors 2022, 22, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19
Sensors 2022, 22, 3810 13 of 19

fairness of the results, the relevant parameters of all compared algorithms are
configured in Tables 1 and 2 shows the benchmark test functions. GWO, MGWO [10],
Table 4. Cont.
NGWO [11], GWO-fuzzy [12], GWO-EPD [13], and the improved GWO in this paper
Function Algorithm Average Value Standard Deviation
were selected for comparison of simulation experiments. Simulation experiments were
− 13 10−14
conducted using Matlab onImproved
a LenovoGWOR7000P, containing
2.4467 × 10a 2020H, 2.901.0871
GHz × processor.
Table 3 shows the comparison of the mean and standard
PSO 7.1522deviation of the results
9.142 × 101of 30
independent runs of the algorithms,
f15
SSA and the best results
4.701 ×of10the
−7 compared3.147
algorithms
× 10−8 are
in bold in the Table3 and Table4. Furthermore, Figure 5 shows the convergence curves of
MA 5.445 × 10−2 4.401 × 10−2
the six algorithms on some of the tested functions.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

Figure 5. Cont.
Sensors 2022,22,
Sensors2022, 22,x 3810
FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of
14 19
of 19

(i) (j)

(k) (l)
Figure
Figure5.5.Convergence
Convergence curves
curves of of
algorithms
algorithms onontesttest
function. (a) (a)
function. f1 function; (b) (b)
f1 function; f2 function; (c) f3
f2 function; (c) f3
function; (d) f4 function; (e) f5 function; (f) f7 function; (g) f8 function; (h) f9 function; (i) f10
function; (d) f4 function; (e) f5 function; (f) f7 function; (g) f8 function; (h) f9 function; (i) f10 function;
function; (j) f11 function;
(j) f11 function; (k) f12 function;
(k) f12 function; (l) f14 function.
(l) f14 function.

Table 1. Parameterwith
4.1. Comparison Configuration.
GWO and Other Improvement GWO
4.1.1. Convergence
Parameter SymbolsAccuracy Analysis Meaning Take Value
From theN traditional GWO Population size
principle, it is known that the exploration 30
ability of the
algorithmTmax depends mainly on the convergence factor,
Maximum Iteration and in practical experiments,
500 it can
be observeda1that the convergence factor decays not linearly from
Initial value of convergence factor 2 to 0 but with the
2 number
of iterations [10]. MGWO convergence factor uses a nonlinear exponential convergence
a2 Final value of convergence factor 0
factor, which will work well compared to the linear convergence factor, which illustrates
the effectiveness of a nonlinear convergence factor.
The results in Table 3 show that the improved GWO algorithm outperforms several
other improved algorithms tested under 15 sets of test functions because the initial set
number of iterations is satisfied. The single-peak test function is mainly used to test the
development capability of the algorithm. For f1, f2, f3, and f4, it can be found the theoretical
optimal value of 0 in terms of the stability of the search and the accuracy of the search. In
solving f7, although the effect is not very obvious after using the improved algorithm, the
mean and standard deviation are still better than the other algorithms and for functions f5
and f6, although the improved GWO does not show the superiority of the algorithm, the
difference with the other algorithms is not much. The improved GWO outperforms the
other algorithms in terms of superiority-seeking ability and stability for the single-peak test
function. The multi-peak test function is mainly used to test the exploration performance
of the algorithm. The test results show that the improved GWO algorithm can reach the
theoretical optimal value on f8 and f10, and f9. Although it cannot reach the optimal value,
it is still better than other improved algorithms.
In summary, the improved GWO algorithm improves the performance of the 15 bench-
mark functions, and it is stable and robust, especially in f1–f4, f8, and f10. The improved
algorithm can improve by several orders of magnitude, which is very obvious. The conver-
gence speed of the improved GWO algorithm is also better than other improved algorithms,
and during the experiment, it was found that the improved algorithm has excellent real-
Sensors 2022, 22, 3810 15 of 19

time performance and can effectively avoid the trap of local optimum in real-time, which
proves the feasibility and superiority of the improved GWO algorithm compared with
other improved algorithms.

4.1.2. Convergence Speed Analysis

In order to visualize the convergence speed and search accuracy of the improved
algorithm, the convergence curves of the analyzed 15 benchmark functions (d = 30) are
shown in Figure 5. Figure 5a–e show the single-peak convergence curve, and (f–l) show the
multi-peak convergence curve. Compared with several other algorithms, the convergence
speed and search accuracy of the improved GWO algorithm is improved. The convergence
curve verifies that the improved GWO algorithm solves single-peak and multi-peak func-
tions. The improved algorithm in this paper can basically converge to the optimal value
under the test of the benchmark function, and the last result is closer to the optimal value
without acquired the best quality.
Moreover, it is found in the simulation process that the algorithm has good stability
and a high success rate. The improved algorithm proposed in this paper has fewer iterations
and higher optimal search accuracy than MGWO and NGWO, although they all can reach
the optimal solution. Chaotic tent mapping, nonlinear convergence factor, and dynamic
weighting strategy are combined in improved GWO, so that the problem of the algorithm
falling into local optimum has been effectively solved and the convergence speed has been
greatly improved. In summary, the improved algorithm can acquire a higher mean and
standard deviation, which shows that the improved algorithm has higher solution accuracy
and stability in most of the tested functions.

4.2. Comparison with Other Intelligent Optimization Algorithms

To further demonstrate the effectiveness of the improved algorithm, the improved
algorithm is compared with the classical optimization algorithms Particle Swarm Optimiza-
tion (PSO) algorithm, Sparrow Search Algorithm (SSA), and Mayfly Algorithm (MA) on
15 benchmark functions. The comparison results are shown in Table 4.
As can be seen from the results in Table 4, under the condition that the number of
iterations is 500, compared with the other three classical algorithms, the improved GWO
can reach the theoretical optimal value of 0 for the single-peaked benchmark functions
f(1)–f(4), f(8), and f(10). In addition, the standard deviations and mean values got on the
other benchmark functions have better performance, showing that the improved algorithm
is practical and workable. The convergence curves are not put into the text due to length
limitation. It is found that the improved algorithm has higher convergence accuracy and
faster convergence speed by comparing the convergence curves with other intelligent
algorithms.
Comparing algorithms based on mean and standard deviation values is not enough.
Wilcoxon’s nonparametric statistical test is conducted at the 5% significance level to deter-
mine whether the improved GWO provides a significant improvement compared to other
algorithms. The different algorithms on the benchmark function were employed to test the
Wilcoxon rank-sum, and P and R values were obtained as a significant level indicator. If the
p value is less than 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected, and the two algorithms tested are
considered significantly different. Conversely, the two algorithms tested are considered not
to be significantly different. R result of ”+”, “−“, and “=“ represent, respectively, improved
GWO performance better than, worse than, and equivalent to the comparison algorithm. If
the p value is NaN, it means that the data is invalid, that is, the experimental results of the
improved algorithm are similar to those of the compared algorithm, and their performance
is similar.
This paper tests the Wilcoxon rank-sum with 30 repeated experiments on 15 benchmark
functions by the improved GWO algorithm and other algorithms. The test results are shown
in Table 5. In the most cases, the R values of the test results are “+”, except that the results
p values for SSA, MA, and improved GWO on f5 are greater than 0.05 and the R values
Sensors 2022, 22, 3810 16 of 19

are “−”, and the results p values for MGWO and Improved GWO on f8 and f10 are NaN
and the R values are “=”. This means the optimization efficiency of Improved GWO and
MGWO is similar in f8 and f10. The results show that the Improved GWO algorithm’s
performance is significantly improved compared with other algorithms in most cases.

Table 5. Wilcoxon’s rank test of Improved GWO and other algorithms on 15 benchmark functions.

Function GWO MGWO NGWO GWO- GWO-EPD SSA MA PSO

Fuzzy
P 6.52 × 10− 12 8.78 × 10− 8 5.05 × 10− 12 6.52 × 10− 12 6.52 × 10− 12 6.01 × 10− 5 6.52 × 10− 12 6.52 × 10− 12
f1
R + + + + + + + +
P 2.07 × 10− 11 1.40 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11
f2
R + + + + + + + +
P 3.77 × 10− 10 6.52 × 10− 12 6.52 × 10− 12 6.52 × 10− 12 6.52 × 10− 12 3.77 × 10− 10 6.52 × 10− 12 6.52 × 10− 12
f3
R + + + + + + + +
P 6.52 × 10− 12 5.05 × 10− 11 6.52 × 10− 12 6.52 × 10− 12 6.52 × 10− 12 3.77 × 10− 11 6.52 × 10− 12 6.52 × 10− 12
f4
R + + + + + + + +
P 4.60 × 10− 3 1.20 × 10−5 6.01 × 10−3 1.09 × 10−2 1.68 × 10−4 2.05 × 10−2 4.23 × 10−1 1.20 × 10−6
f5
R + + + + + - - +
P 2.07 × 10− 11 1.41 × 10−11 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11
f6
R + + + + + + + +
P 3.01 × 10−11 5.24 × 10−9 3.01 × 10−11 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11
f7
R + + + + + + + +
P 6.52 × 10− 12 NaN 6.52 × 10− 12 6.52 × 10− 12 6.52 × 10− 12 2.07 × 10−11 6.52 × 10− 12 6.52 × 10− 12
f8
R + = + + + + + +
P 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 3.77 × 10−10 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11
f9
R + + + + + + + +
P 6.52 × 10− 12 NaN NaN 6.52 × 10− 12 6.52 × 10− 12 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 6.52 × 10− 12
f10
R + = = + + + + +
P 6.52 × 10− 12 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 6.52 × 10− 12 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 6.52 × 10− 12
f11
R + + + + + + + +
P 6.52 × 10− 12 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 6.52 × 10− 12 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 6.52 × 10− 12
f12
R + + + + + + + +
P 6.52 × 10− 12 1.20e−06 6.52 × 10− 12 6.52 × 10− 12 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 6.52 × 10− 12
f13
R + + + + + + + +
P 6.52 × 10− 12 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 2.07 × 10− 11 6.52 × 10− 12
f14
R + + + + + + + +
P 2.07 × 10− 11 6.52 × 10− 12 6.52 × 10− 12 2.07 × 10− 11 6.52 × 10− 12 6.52 × 10− 12 6.52 × 10− 12 6.52 × 10− 12
f15
R + + + + + + + +

4.3. Path Planning Application

4.3.1. Problem Description
In path planning with obstacle avoidance for mobile robot, the mathematical model of
robot environment should be established firstly replacing the virtual environment. After
setting the start and end point of the mobile robot in the environment model, an intelligent
algorithm is used to find a continuous curve that satisfies a specific performance index,
which can avoid the obstacles in the environment.
The randomly generated individuals based on the intelligent optimization algorithm
do not conform to the search space. It is necessary to establish a suitable fitness function
consider various constraints, and then eliminate the individuals in the population who do
not meet the constraints to acquire the better individuals. The mobile robot has to consider
various factors in its actual operation. Therefore, it has the following main constraints.
Sensors 2022, 22, 3810 17 of 19

1. Maximum cornering angle constraint

When using the algorithm for mobile robot path planning, it is necessary to consider
the maximum steering angle constraint, which affects robot safety. This node is discarded if
the specific rotation angle is outside the maximum performance range that the robot should
withstand. If the rotation angle can satisfy the robot’s maneuverability, judge the other
constraints. The maximum turning angle is specified as 60◦ in the simulation experiment.
2. Threat area constraints
Mobile robot path planning makes the robot reach its destination in the shortest
distance while bypassing obstacles. The mathematical expression for the obstacle area can
be got. Assuming that the distance between the robot and the center of the obstacle is
dT , the damage to the robot caused by obstacle area, defined as Probability PT (dT ), can be
calculated as: 

 0, d T > d Tmax
1
PT (d T ) = d , d Tmin ≤ d T ≤ d Tmax (15)
 T

1, d T < d Tmin
where dTmax indicates the maximum radius affected by the area, dTmin is the region where
the probability of robot collision is 1.

4.3.2. Path Planning

The main steps of applying the improved grey wolf algorithm to path planning are
as follows:
1. Establish the search space according to the actual environment, and set the starting
point and target point.
2. Initialize the parameters of grey wolf algorithm, including the number of wolves,
the maximum number of iterations, tent mapping parameters, and upper and lower
bounds for parameter values.
3. Initialize the grey wolf’s position and objective function according to the utiliza-
tion mapping.
4. Calculate each grey wolf’s fitness and select the top three grey wolves as wolf α, wolf
β, and wolf w for the fitness ranking.
5. Compare with the objective function to update the position and the objective function.
6. Update the convergence factor at each iteration.
7. Calculate the next position of other wolves according to the positions of wolf α, wolf β,
and wolf w.
8. Reach the maximum number of iterations and output the optimal path.
To verify the performance of the improved GWO algorithm, the improved GWO
algorithm applies to the path planning of mobile robot for verification analysis. The robot’s
starting point is set as (0,0), and the target point is set as (100,100). The obstacles are
generated randomly. a1 = 2, a2 = 0, the initial number of grey wolves is 30, and the
maximum number of iterations is 500. the GWO, literature [10] MGWO, literature [11]
NGWO, literature [12] GWO-fuzzy, literature [13] GWO-EPD, and the improved GWO
algorithm in this paper, are applied to path planning for comparison. Figure 6a–e shows
the obstacle avoidance paths planned by each improved GWO, and Figure 6f shows the
convergence curves of the corresponding algorithms.
As shown in Figure 6a–e, except for MGWO, other improved algorithms find poorer
and more costly paths. Although the path length of MGWO is short, the planned path is
too close to the danger area, which is not conducive to the application of mobile robots.
In addition, it can be seen from Figure 6f that the algorithm in this paper has better
convergence compared with other improved algorithms. In summary, the improved
GWO proposed in this paper can stably plan a safe path with optimal cost and satisfying
constraints.
 are generated randomly. a1 = 2, a2 = 0, the initial number of grey wolves is 30, and the
maximum number of iterations is 500. the GWO, literature [10] MGWO, literature [11]
NGWO, literature [12] GWO-fuzzy, literature [13] GWO-EPD, and the improved GWO
algorithm in this paper, are applied to path planning for comparison. Figure 6a–e shows
Sensors 2022, 22, 3810 the obstacle avoidance paths planned by each improved GWO, and Figure 6f shows the
18 of 19
convergence curves of the corresponding algorithms.

Sensors 2022, 22, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 19

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure
Figure6.6.
Path
Pathplanning results.
planning (a) Improved
results. GWO;
(a) Improved (b) MGWO;
GWO; (c) NGWO;
(b) MGWO; (d) GWO-fuzzy;
(c) NGWO; (e)
(d) GWO-fuzzy;
GWO-EPD; (f) convergence curves.
(e) GWO-EPD; (f) convergence curves.

As shown in Figure 6a – e, except for MGWO, other improved algorithms find

5. Conclusions
poorerThis
andpaper
more proposes
costly paths.
andAlthough
applies anthe path length
improved GWO of to
MGWO is short,
the path the planned
planning of mobile
path is too
robot. close
First, to the danger
an improved area,
chaotic which
tent is notisconducive
mapping proposed, to the application
which is applied toofthe
mobile
initial
robots.
stage of the algorithm to increase the diversity of population initialization and improvehas
In addition, it can be seen from Figure 6f that the algorithm in this paper the
better
globalconvergence compared
search capability. Second, with other convergence
a nonlinear improved algorithms.
factor based In summary,
on the the
change curve
improved
of GaussianGWO proposedisin
distribution thistopaper
used canthe
balance stably plan a safe
algorithm’s path
global withcapability
search optimal cost
andand
local
satisfying constraints.
search capability. Finally, the traditional GWO is optimized with an improved dynamic
weighting strategy. In order to test the competence of the improved GWO, 15 well-known
5.benchmark
Conclusions functions having a wide range of dimensions and varied complexities are
usedThis paper
in this proposes
paper. The and applies
results anproposed
of the improvedimproved
GWO to the GWO path areplanning
compared of mobile
to eight
robot.
other First, an improved
algorithms. chaotic
The results showtent
thatmapping
the improvedis proposed,
GWO haswhich is applied tospeed
better convergence the
initial stage of accuracy.
and solution the algorithm to increase
In addition, the diversity
the improved GWO of population
is applied toinitialization and
the mobile robot
improve the global
path planning. Thesearch capability.
test results Second,
show that a nonlinear
the improved GWO convergence
significantly factor based cost
improves on
the change curve
consumption and of Gaussian speed
convergence distribution
comparedis used
with to balance
other the algorithm’s global
algorithms.
searchThecapability
improvedandGWOlocal search
algorithmcapability.
proposed Finally,
in thisthe traditional
paper is applied GWO is optimized
to mobile robots’
with an improved
obstacle avoidance dynamic weightingThe
path planning. strategy. In order
situation to test
of falling intothe competence
local extremes of thebe
can
improved
avoided and GWO,15 well-known
the convergence speedbenchmark
and stabilityfunctions having when
can be improved a wide range ofis
the algorithm
dimensions and varied
applied to obstacle complexities
avoidance are usedof
path planning inmobile
this paper.
robot.The results
In the nextof the proposed
research, we will
improved
continue to GWO are compared
improve the algorithmto eight other the
and apply algorithms.
improvedThe resultstoshow
algorithm morethat the
practical
improved GWO has better convergence speed and solution accuracy. In addition, the
mobile robots.
improved GWO is applied to the mobile robot path planning. The test results show that
the improved
Author Conceptualization,
GWO significantly
Contributions: Y.H.;cost
improves methodology,
consumption Y.H.;andsoftware, Y.H.; validation,
convergence speed
Y.H. and H.G.; formal analysis, Y.H.; investigation, Y.H.; resources, Y.H.; data curation, Y.H.;
compared with other algorithms.
writing—original draft preparation, Y.H., Z.W. and C.D.; writing—review and editing, H.G.; vi-
The improved GWO algorithm proposed in this paper is applied to mobile robots’
sualization, Y.H.; supervision, H.G.; project administration, Y.H. All authors have read and agreed to
obstacle avoidance
the published versionpath
of theplanning.
manuscript.The situation of falling into local extremes can be
avoided and the convergence speed and stability can be improved when the algorithm is
applied
Funding: toThis
obstacle avoidance
work was partiallypath planning
supported by theofNational
mobile Natural
robot. In the next
Science research,
Foundation we
of China
under Grant (No. 61903227). We also wish to acknowledge the support of the Important R&D
will continue to improve the algorithm and apply the improved algorithm to more
Program of Shandong, China (Grant No. 2019GGX104105).
practical mobile robots.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.H. methodology; Y.H. software; Y.H. validation; Y.H.,
H.G. formal analysis, Y.H. investigation; Y.H. resources; Y.H. data curation; Y.H. writing—
original draft preparation, Y.H., Z.W. and C.D. writing—review and editing, H.G. visualization,
Y.H. supervision, H.G. project administration, Y.H. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
Sensors 2022, 22, 3810 19 of 19

Data Availability Statement: The processed data required to reproduce these findings cannot be
shared as the data also forms part of an ongoing study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Zafar, M.N.; Mohanta, J.C. Methodology for path planning and optimization of mobile robots: A review. Procedia Comput. Sci.
2018, 133, 141–152. [CrossRef]
2. Zhao, X. Mobile robot path planning based on an improved A* algorithm. Robot 2018, 40, 903–910.
3. Chongqing, T.Z. Path planning of mobile robot with A* algorithm based on the artificial potential field. Comput. Sci. 2021, 48,
327–333.
4. Eberhart, R.C. Guest editorial special issue on particle swarm optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 2004, 8, 201–203. [CrossRef]
5. Zhangfang, H. Improved particle swarm optimization algorithm for mobile robot path planning. Comput. Appl. Res. 2021, 38,
3089–3092. [CrossRef]
6. Wang, H. Robot Path Planning Based on Improved Adaptive Genetic Algorithm. Electro Optics & Control: 1–7. Available online:
http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/41.1227.TN.20220105.1448.015.html (accessed on 21 March 2022).
7. Mirjalili, S.; Mirjalili, S.M.; Lewis, A. grey wolf optimizer. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2014, 69, 46–61. [CrossRef]
8. Saxena, A.; Kumar, R.; Das, S. β-chaotic map-enabled grey wolf optimizer. Appl. Soft Comput. 2019, 75, 84–105. [CrossRef]
9. Cai, J. Non-linear grey wolf optimization algorithm based on Tent mapping and elite Gauss perturbation. Comput. Eng. Des. 2022,
43, 186–195. [CrossRef]
10. Zhang, Y. Modified grey wolf optimization algorithm for global optimization problems. J. Univ. Shanghai Sci. Techol. 2021, 43,
73–82. [CrossRef]
11. Wang, M. Novel grey wolf optimization algorithm based on nonlinear convergence factor. Appl. Res. Comput. 2016, 33, 3648–3653.
12. Rodríguez, L.; Castillo, O.; Soria, J.; Melin, P.; Valdez, F.; Gonzalez, C.I.; Martinez, G.E.; Soto, J. A fuzzy hierarchical operator in
the grey wolf optimizer algorithm. Appl. Soft Comput. 2017, 57, 315–328. [CrossRef]
13. Saremi, S.; Zahra, M.S.; Mohammad, M.S. Evolutionary population dynamics and grey wolf optimizer. Neural Comput. Appl.
2015, 26, 1257–1263. [CrossRef]
14. Wang, Q. Improved grey wolf optimizer with convergence factor and proportion weight. Comput. Eng. Appl. 2019, 55, 60–65+98.
15. Yue, Z.; Zhang, S.; Xiao, W. A novel hybrid algorithm based on grey wolf optimizer and fireworks algorithm. Sensors 2020, 20, 2147.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Wang, S.; Yang, X.; Wang, X.; Qian, Z. A virtual force algorithm-lévy-embedded grey wolf optimization algorithm for wireless
sensor network coverage optimization. Sensors 2019, 19, 2735. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Mahdy, A.M.S.; Lotfy, K.; Hassan, W.; El-Bary, A.A. Analytical solution of magneto-photothermal theory during variable thermal
conductivity of a semiconductor material due to pulse heat flux and volumetric heat source. Waves Random Complex Media 2021,
31, 2040–2057. [CrossRef]
18. Khamis, A.K.; Lotfy, K.; El-Bary, A.A.; Mahdy, A.M.; Ahmed, M.H. Thermal-piezoelectric problem of a semiconductor medium
during photo-thermal excitation. Waves Random Complex Media 2021, 31, 2499–2513. [CrossRef]
19. Yin, L. Path Planning Combined with Improved Grey Wolf Optimization Algorithm and Artificial Potential Filed Method. Elector
Measurement Technology: 1–11. Available online: https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?doi=10.19651/j.cnki.emt.2108
659 (accessed on 21 March 2022).
20. You, D. A path planning method for mobile robot based on improved grey wolf optimizer. Mach. Tool Hydraul. 2021, 49, 6.
21. Kumar, R.; Singh, L.; Tiwari, R. Path planning for the autonomous robots using modified grey wolf optimization approach. J.
Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2021, 40, 9453–9470. [CrossRef]
22. Ge, F.; Li, K.; Xu, W. Path planning of UAV for oilfield inspection based on improved grey wolf optimization algorithm. In
Proceedings of the 2019 Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC), Nanchang, China, 3–5 June 2019.
23. Kumar, R.; Singh, L.; Tiwari, R. Comparison of two meta–heuristic algorithms for path planning in robotics. In Proceedings of the
2020 International Conference on Contemporary Computing and Applications (IC3A), Lucknow, India, 5–7 February 2020.
24. Shrivastava, V.K.; Makhija, P.; Raj, R. Joint optimization of energy efficiency and scheduling strategies for side-link relay system.
In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), San Francisco, CA, USA, 19–22
March 2017.