Engineering with Computers

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-020-01234-1

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

SGOA: annealing‑behaved grasshopper optimizer for global tasks

Caiyang Yu1 · Mengxiang Chen2 · Kai Cheng3 · Xuehua Zhao4 · Chao Ma4 · Fangjun Kuang5 · Huiling Chen1 

Received: 26 October 2020 / Accepted: 2 December 2020

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd. part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
An improved grasshopper optimization algorithm (GOA) is proposed in this paper, termed as SGOA, which combines
simulated annealing (SA) mechanism with the original GOA that is a natural optimizer widely used in finance, medical and
other fields, and receives more promising results based on grasshopper behavior. To compare performance of the SGOA and
other algorithms, an investigation to select CEC2017 benchmark function as the test set was carried out. Also, the Fried-
man assessment was performed to check the significance of the proposed method against other counterparts. In comparison
with ten meta-heuristic algorithms such as differential evolution (DE), the proposed SGOA can rank first in the CEC2017,
and also ranks first in comparison with ten advanced algorithms. The simulation results reveal that the SA strategy notably
improves the exploration and exploitation capacity of GOA. Moreover, the SGOA is also applied to engineering problems
and parameter optimization of the kernel extreme learning machine (KELM). After optimizing the parameters of KELM
using SGOA, the model was applied to two datasets, Cleveland Heart Dataset and Japanese Bankruptcy Dataset, and they
achieved an accuracy of 79.2% and 83.5%, respectively, which were better than the KELM model obtained other algorithms.
In these practical applications, it is indicated that the proposed SGOA can provide effective assistance in settling complex
optimization problems with impressive results.

Keywords  Grasshopper optimization algorithm · Swarm intelligence · Kernel extreme learning machine · Engineering
design

1 Introduction

1.1 Background and literature review

Along with the social progress, people are always look-

ing for a measure to weigh whether the affairs are being in
Fangjun Kuang, Huiling Chen have contributed equally to this
work.

1
* Fangjun Kuang Department of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence,
kfj@wzbc.edu.cn Wenzhou University, Wenzhou 325035, China
2
* Huiling Chen Department of Information Technology, Wenzhou Vocational
chenhuiling.jlu@gmail.com College of Science and Technology, Wenzhou 325006,
Zhejiang, China
Caiyang Yu
3
Jerome0324@163.com State Grid Hebei Information & Telecommunication Branch,
Shijiazhuang 050021, China
Mengxiang Chen
4
chenmengxiang2016@163.com School of Digital Media, Shenzhen Institute of Information
Technology, Shenzhen 518172, China
Kai Cheng
5
smileck@126.com School of Information Engineering, Wenzhou Business
College, Wenzhou 325035, China
Xuehua Zhao
lcrlc@sina.com
Chao Ma
billmach@163.com

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

the best state when making the solving-obstacle decision.
In many fields, such as industrial manufacturing, scientific
research, transportation, engineering research, energy man-
agement, resource utilization, engineering design, social
finance, communication network optimization and so on,
people have perseveringly aimed to find the best processing
method, although under certain restrictions [1–5]. Therefore,
optimization algorithms have emerged as the time requires.
Optimization refers to the process of finding the optimal
feasible solution under a specific restriction, such as in a
reasonable time, or in a specified place, etc., in which the
working solution of the optimization problem can be con-
ducted quantitatively. The so-called optimization problem
refers to parameter values setting to make some optimal-
ity techniques of the function (or system) being met under
certain conditions, strive for maximizing or minimizing its
function’s performance indexes [6–11]. Using the optimiza-
tion algorithm to solve the optimization problem as the most
common and effective method now, can be applied to all
aspects of social activities in a broad range [12–23].
Since not only do the optimization algorithm bring con-
venience to people’s activities, but also it is beneficial to
all aspects of national development, it has certain theoreti-
cal significance and great implement prospects. As the sus-
tained growth of the society, people are facing increasingly
complex problems. At the same time, with the penetration
and utilization of computer technology, more optimization
algorithms emerge. Especially after the flourish of artifi-
cial intelligence, genetics, and other disciplines, many
researchers have integrated and performed those in opti-
mization problems. Under such a background, the swarm
intelligence optimization algorithm will come into being.
The swarm intelligence algorithm belongs to random opti-
mization algorithms. And it explores the solution space
randomly through the iterative evolution of search agents.
Many scholars are also committed to the research of this
kind of algorithm [24–28]. Most of these algorithms are
enlightened by the movement and reproduction of animals.
For example, genetic algorithm (GA) [29] is inspired by the
phenomenon of genetic material cross mutation; ant colony
algorithm (ACO) [30] is stimulated by ant colony foraging;
particle swarm algorithm (PSO) [31] is developed by the
flight behavior of birds. Recently, many great swarm intel-
ligence algorithms have been proposed, such as dragonfly
algorithm (DA) [32], gray wolf optimization (GWO) [33]
algorithm, gravity search algorithm (GSA) [34], whale opti-
mization algorithm (WOA) [35], grasshopper optimization
algorithm (GOA) [36], etc. The GOA involved in this paper
is proposed by Saremi et al. Because of its simple and effi-
cient implementation, GOA has been used in various fields
13
Engineering with Computers
[37, 38]. Tumuluru et al. [39] declared to update the weight
of the Depp belief Neural Network using GOA and Gradient
Descent, and then used the Neural Network to classify the
cancer-diagnosis image. Zhao et al. [40] proposed a multi-
stage intelligent wind power prediction algorithm through
integrating the Beveridge–Nelson decomposition method,
support vector machine and GOA. Sultana et al. [41] used
GOA to optimize energy and stabilize the coefficient of the
system in an original way of combining the optimal dis-
tribution of Distributed Generation (DG) and BBS. Liang
et al. [42] modified the GOA with Levy flight algorithm, and
then applied the improved GOA to the multi-level thresh-
old method to search for the optimal threshold. Omar et al.
[43] employed GOA to adjust the gain value of the pro-
portional-integral-derivative (PID) controller. Zhang et al.
[44] utilized GOA to optimize the parameters of variable
mode decomposition (VMD). Compared with the traditional
fixed parameters, the efficiency has been greatly improved.
Mafarja et al. [45] proposed an efficient optimizer with uses
of grasshopper optimization algorithm, selection operation
and evolutionary population dynamics (EPD) to reduce the
immature convergence of the simple grasshopper optimiza-
tion algorithm, for good results in feature selection. Jumani
et al. [46] highlighted grasshopper optimization algorithm to
obtain the optimal proportion integral (PI) in the controller
gains, so as to enhance the dynamic response of microgrid
system in Islanded. GOA approach was introduced by Ibra-
him et al. [47] to optimize the parameters affecting support
vector machine and to select features on a real biological
data set. Liu et al. [48] combined with linear weighting and
grasshopper optimization algorithm, established an accu-
rate Internet energy hub model, and the results also proved
the scalability and other advantages of the set strategy. Wu
et al. [49] made use of multiple strategies, such as natural
selection, the original GOA, the proposed adaptive GOA
(AGOA), and then regarded the algorithm as the solver of
distributed model predictive control (DMPC). Saxena et al.
[50] operated different chaotic sequences into GOA. three
mechanisms including Gauss Mutation, Levy-flight strategy
and opposition-based learning method to GOA integrated
by Luo et al. [51], were successfully applied to the financial
stress prediction problem. Jia et al. [52] combined the adap-
tive differential evolution strategy in the grasshopper optimi-
zation algorithm, proposed the GOA-jDE algorithm, which
improved the convergence speed and calculation accuracy
of the original algorithm. At the same time, the new algo-
rithm also plays an indispensable role in engineering design.
Zakeri et al. [53] improved the grasshopper optimization
algorithm called grasshopper optimization feature selection
(GOFS), to make it more suitable to solve the problem of
Engineering with Computers
feature selection. A promotion made by Saxena et al. [54]
that the two-stage bridging mechanism in the grasshopper
optimization algorithm was formed and ten different chaotic
maps enhanced chaotic grasshopper optimization algorithms
(ECGOAs). Another combination of grasshopper optimiza-
tion algorithm and adaptive differential evolution (jDE) to
get GOA-jDE that Jia et al. [55] developed, was verified that
its robustness in processing natural images by testing and
evaluating on different satellite images. Ewees et al. [56]
proposed a grasshopper optimization algorithm based on
opposition-based learning, which was tested on the bench-
mark function and was useful in engineering problems. Yue
et al. [57] took the innovation of principal component analy-
sis strategy (PCA-GOA), and then added the inertia weight
operation to enhance the whole performance of the original
algorithm. Arora et al. [58] introduced chaos theory into the
optimization process of GOA to speed up global conver-
gence and improve the performance of the original GOA.
Ghulanavar et al. [59] propose an improved GOA (IGOA)
for selecting the hidden units present in the bidirectional
LSTM (Long short-term memory) layer of the AlexNet,
resulting in improved accuracy of AlexNet in the classifica-
tion of various gear signals.
Hence, the GOA has widely concerned in various field
because of its simplicity, flexibility and efficiency. However,
in multimodal and other complex problems, GOA shows
its shortcomings, such as weak ability to jump out of local
optimal solution, over-fast convergence trend and so on. For
different optimization problems, GOA generates solutions in
different ways. Therefore, dealing with different optimiza-
tion problems, new solution generation methods are need.
When using GOA to deal with diverse optimization algo-
rithms, although we can find the corresponding strategy, it
is not far enough. Therefore, it is managed to modify the
core dismissal of GOA to overcome its weakness through
more effective strategies. Compared with other algorithms,
GOA has some excellent characteristics, which are formu-
lated in the work of the original GOA and the work based
on GOA. Meanwhile, the improvement strategy proposed
in this paper also confirms this point. GOA has a simplified
structure and computational complexity, so it is easier to
get favors of researchers than other mature algorithms. In
this paper, the simulated annealing (SA) [60] mechanism to
improve algorithm performance is described in detail and
the simulated annealing GOA (SGOA) is proposed, aiming
at boosting the basic local search ability of GOA. The core
of the SA mechanism is to jump out of a certain range of
optimal solutions with a set probability to find other optimal
solutions. If there is a better solution than the previous one,
it will be replaced, otherwise it will not change. The new
SGOA is tested on 30 functions to evaluate its effectiveness.
These 30 functions are selected from well-regarded IEEE
CEC2017 [61]. We conducted the Friedman test [62] to ver-
ify the significant differences between the SGOA and other
counterparts. Finally, the proposed SGOA is applied to settle
mathematical model problems and parameter optimization
of kernel extreme learning machine (KELM) [63] model.
1.2 Novelty and contributions
The original GOA has the same defects as the traditional
swarm intelligence algorithm. As the population contin-
ues to evolve, the diversity of the population will become
weaker, which means that the distribution of solutions in
the entire feasible region will centralize the region, which
will further weaken the search ability of the algorithm. The
chaotic map and Levy flight strategy are introduced into the
original SA. And, the uncertainty of the chaotic map makes
it possible to explore other potential solutions in the space,
ensuring the diversity of the population during the entire
iteration process, as the same time, Levy flight enhances the
search ability of the algorithm and improves the ability of
the population to jump out of the local optimum. Accord-
ingly, the SA based on chaotic mapping and Levy flight is
introduced into GOA, which effectively avoids the premature
phenomenon of the algorithm and improves its convergence
accuracy. Moreover, from the experimental results, it is not
difficult to find that the SGOA proposed in this work has the
fastest convergence speed in most cases and its optimization
accuracy is also satisfactory compared with other GOAs that
have been published.
In general, the following contributions are made in this
work.
To effectively solve the disadvantages of GOA, we intro-
duced the SA strategy into GOA.
The proposed SGOA is applied to engineering problems,
and it has achieved promising results.
The proposed SGOA successfully solves the parameter
optimization of KELM. And the final model has made
a good evaluation in the classification of diseases and
financial stress prediction.
1.3 Paper organization
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 pre-
sents a concise description of GOA. Section 3 explains the
conception of SA and SGOA in detail. Section 4 introduces
and analyzes the simulation results of SGOA on benchmark
functions, engineering design problems and parameter opti-
mization of the KELM model. Section 5 summarizes the
whole study and points out future work.
13
 Engineering with Computers

2 Grasshopper optimization algorithm Gi = −ĝeg (6)

(GOA)
where g is the acceleration of gravity, ê g refers a unity vec-
GOA was proposed by Saremi et al. [36], who solved optimi- tor of g.
zation problems by simulating the behavior of grasshoppers The composition of variable A in Eq. (1) is as follows:
in nature. The life of grasshopper can be divided into two
Ai = ûew (7)
stages: larval and adult. The behavior of grasshoppers in
two stages is entirely different. Grasshoppers in their larval where u is a constant drift and ê w is a unity vector.
phase move slowly. If they want to move in a wide range, In combination with the above formula, we can convert
they can only rely on the wind. In contrast, adult grasshop- the original Eq. (1) into the following form:
pers can move and search for objects over long distances by
N ( )
jumping and flying. In the GOA, the corresponding math- ∑ | | xj − xi
Xi = s |xj − xi | − ĝeg + ûew
ematical model is obtained by imitating the grasshopper’s | | dij (8)
j=1
survival behavior. In the algorithm, the grasshopper’s posi- j≠i
tion is taken as a candidate solution. Combined with the two
stages of grasshopper’s life, its movement is mainly affected where N refers the number of grasshoppers.
by three factors. The formulation expression is as follows: To be more conducive to the establishment of mathemati-
cal model, parameters are added on the basis of Eq. (8), so
Xi = Si + Gi + Ai (1) that the original formula can adjust the exploitation and
exploration ability more effectively. In addition, among the
where Xi defines the position of the ith grasshopper, Si is the three influencing factors, the influence of gravity force is the
social interaction, Gi is the gravity force on the ith grasshop- weakest and can be ignored. At the same time, it is assumed
per, and Ai shows the wind advection. that the direction of wind is in the direction of the optimal
∑
N
( ) solution. Finally, the above formula can be transformed into:
Si = s dij d̂ ij
(2) ⎛N ⎞
⎜� ubd − lbd �� d � xj − xi ⎟
j=1
j≠i d�
Xid = c⎜ c s �xj − xi � + T̂ d (9)
⎜ j=1 2 � � dij ⎟⎟
| | ⎝ j≠i ⎠
dij = |xj − xi | (3)
| |
where ubd and lbd is the bound of Dth dimension, T̂ d is the
value of the Dth dimension in the current optimal solution.
d̂ ij = (xj − xi )∕dij (4)
And the parameter c is as follows:
−r c max −c min
s(r) = fe l − e−r (5) c = c max −l (10)
L
The above four formulas are used to calculate social where cmax and cmin is the maximum and minimum value,
interaction. Where dij is the distance between the ith and l is the current iteration, and L is the maximum of iteration.
jth grasshopper, d̂ ij is a unit vector between the ith and jth The overall framework of GOA is as follows:
grasshopper. The function s represents social forces, where
f and l represent the intensity and scale of attraction.
The composition of variable G in Eq. (1) is as follows:

13
Engineering with Computers

3 Proposed method The Metropolis criterion means that even if the solution
obtained in the next iteration is worse than the previous one,
3.1 Simulated annealing (SA) it will accept the next solution with a certain probability and
abandon the current solution. The acceptance probability
In 1983, American physicist S. Kirkpatrick et al. [64] devel- formula is as follows:
oped a set of algorithms based on the metropolis method, {
and used them to seek the optimal solution in combinatorial 1 ( ) snew ≤ s
P= s−snew (11)
optimization. Later, Kirkpatrick et al. named the method exp T
snew > s
"simulated annealing". The simulated solid annealing pro-
cess in thermodynamics is employed in SA. After the solid where s and snew are the solutions obtained by the current
is heated, the high-temperature environment will cause the solution and the next iteration, respectively. T denotes the
molecules to have a turbulent and irregular arrangement
state. However, after the temperature is slowly reduced, the
molecules will slowly reach a stable solidification state, and Temperature T0 Temperature Tn
Energy E0 Basic energy
then the solid will also reach a stable state. The annealing
process is shown in Fig. 1. Starting from the initial tem-
perature T0 , the whole energy is at its maximum, and the Temperature T0 Temperature T1 Temperature Tn
quantum state (reflected in the algorithm as the initial state
Thermal equilibrium Cooling Thermal equilibrium N-th Thermal equilibrium
of the population) is also relatively active. After that, the process process Cooling process
quantum state will reach a balance through constant cooling,
Metropolis Metropolis Metropolis
thermal equilibrium process and Metropolis process. At this
time, the quantum has the most basic energy.
Fig. 1  Simulated annealing in solid state

13
 Engineering with Computers

Fig. 2  Flowchart of simulated annealing

where being the controlled parameter, 𝜇 is always evaluated

at 4. When 𝜇 = 4 , the particle moves in chaos. 𝛽i is a random
value between [0,1], and s is the number of population parti-
cles. Chaos is very sensitive to early conditions, which can
be understood as a kind of dynamic motion with random-
ness. To increase the diversity of the premature population,
chaos was described into SA and mapped into the grasshop-
pers’ population.
The introduction of levy flight into the SA mechanism can
enhance the searching capacity of the population and ensure
that the population can get a better solution. Levy flight
operation is performed according to the following formula:
�
xi = xi × (1 + L(𝛽)) (13)

where xi is the current individual and xi is the individual

′

after Levy operation. And L(𝛽) is a distributed random num-

ber obtained from levy distribution.
Based on the above analysis, the flow chart of the
Fig. 3  Flow chart of SGOA improved simulated annealing is obtained as shown in Fig. 2.

3.3 SA‑based GOA
corresponding temperature, and P denotes the probability.
SA operation continues until the temperature drops to a set
Although the original GOA has some advantages in solv-
minimum.
ing optimization problems, such as fast searching power for
feasible solutions in space. However, the balance of GOA
3.2 Enhanced SA
in exploration and exploitation phases is not better enough
than other algorithms. First of all, the original GOA has
It can be seen from the previous section that the concept
weak ability to jump out of local optimal solution. Usually,
of SA is derived from physics performance. Therefore, to
after finding the local minimum in the solution space (tak-
make the SA mechanism more consistent with GOA, SA is
ing searching for the minimum solution as an example), it is
enhanced further. In the proposed algorithm, two operations
difficult to jump out of it and search for the minimum value.
are introduced into SA to increase population diversity: cha-
Secondly, the population solution is onefold, which will
otic map and Levy-flight [65].
lead to the smaller range of population search and the lower
The implementation of chaotic mapping is as follows:
probability of encountering the optimal solution. Therefore,
( )
𝛽i+1 = 𝜇𝛽i × 1 − 𝛽i i = 1, 2, … , s − 1 (12) based on the above discussion, the first thing to solve is to
get rid of the current method and get the optimal solution,

13
Engineering with Computers

and then increase the number of population solutions. There- Table 2  Parameters setting for MAs
fore, the SA mechanism involves to the original GOA, and MAs Popula- Maximum Parameter values
levy flight and chaotic mapping embrace to the annealing tion size generation
process for the increase of population diversity. The general
SGOA 30 1000 cMax = 1; cMin = 0.00004
framework of SGOA is shown in Fig. 3.
DE 30 1000 Scaling factor = [0.2, 0.8];
Crossover probability = 0.2
3.4 Motivation GWO 30 1000 a ∈ [20]
WOA 30 1000 a1 = [20]; a2 = [−2 − 1];b = 1
As described above, in a traditional GOA, the population
MFO 30 1000 b = 1;t = [−11]; a ∈ [−1 − 2]
concentrates towards an optimal individual position as the
GOA 30 1000 cMax = 1; cMin = 0.00004
individual position is constantly updated. The concentra-
SSA 30 1000 c1 ∈ [01];c2 ∈ [01]
tion of individuals in the population will, to some extent,
BA 30 1000 A = 0.5;r = 0.5
lead to early maturation when facing multi-modal problems.
SCA 30 1000 A=2
Moreover, the imbalance between exploitation and explora-
MVO 30 1000 Existence probability ∈ [0.21]
tion in GOA also causes the problem of poor search ability Travelling distance rate ∈ [0.61]
of the algorithm. Therefore, there is reason to believe that it ALO 30 1000 k = 500
is crucial to design an optimizer that can ameliorate the loss
of population diversity, poor search ability, and sufficient

Table 1  Detail of the IEEE No. Function Fi∗ = Fi (x∗ )

CEC2017 test functions
Unimodal function 1 Shifted and rotated bent cigar function 100
2 Shifted and rotated sum of different power function 200
3 Shifted and rotated zakharov function 300
Simple multimodal function 4 Shifted and rotated Rosenbrock’s function 400
5 Shifted and rotated Rastrigin’s function 500
6 Shifted and rotated expanded Scaffer’s F6 function 600
7 Shifted and rotated lunacek Bi_Rastrigin function 700
8 Shifted and rotated non-continuous Rastrigin’s function 800
9 Shifted and rotated Levy function 900
10 Shifted and rotated Schwefel’s function 1000
Hybrid function (HF) 11 HF 1 (N = 3) 1100
12 HF 2 (N = 3) 1200
13 HF 3 (N = 3) 1300
14 HF 4 (N = 4) 1400
15 HF 5 (N = 4) 1500
16 HF 6 (N = 4) 1600
17 HF 6 (N = 5) 1700
18 HF 6 (N = 5) 1800
19 HF 6 (N = 5) 1900
20 HF 6 (N = 6) 2000
Composition function (CF) 21 CF 1 (N = 3) 2100
22 CF 2 (N = 3) 2200
23 CF 3 (N = 4) 2300
24 CF 4 (N = 4) 2400
25 CF 5 (N = 5) 2500
26 CF 6 (N = 5) 2600
27 CF 7 (N = 6) 2700
28 CF 8 (N = 6) 2800
29 CF 9(N = 3) 2900
30 CF 10 (N = 3) 3000
Search range:[−100,100]D

13

ability to jump local optimality in the original GOA. The
chaotic map and Levy flight strategy are introduced into the
original SA. And, the uncertainty of the chaotic map makes
it possible to explore other potential solutions in the space,
ensuring the diversity of the population during the entire
iteration process, as the same time, Levy flight enhances the
search ability of the algorithm and improves the ability of
the population to jump out of the local optimum. Based on
this consideration, we design SGOA to improve the perfor-
mance of basic GOA when deal with engineering problems
and parameter optimization of KELM.
4 Experimental result
In this chapter, SGOA will be compared with the well-
known algorithms and advanced algorithms, and then it will
be employed to engineering problems and parameter optimi-
zation of the KELM [63]. Firstly, SGOA is in comparison
with other meta-heuristics [66] on 30 IEEE CEC2017 [61]
benchmark problems. The purpose is to analyze whether
the proposed algorithm is well improved or not. Secondly,
SGOA is competed with the advanced algorithms on IEEE
CEC2017 test set to further verify its effectiveness. Finally,
the performance of SGOA is validated using engineering
problems and parameter optimization of KELM.
The average result (Avg.) and standard deviation (Std.)
were used to evaluate the performance of SGOA, where the
optimal result for each problem will be bold. Among them,
"+/=/−" respectively indicates whether the algorithm of this
paper was superior to, equal to, or inferior to other algo-
rithms. In addition, the Friedman test [67] was also used to
assess the average performance of the algorithm in statisti-
cal sense and the average ranking value (ARV) was used to
represent the results.
All experiments were carried out under the Windows
Server 2012 R2 OS using MATLAB R2014a software, and
the hardware platform used was configured with Intel (R)
Xeon (R) Sliver 4110 CPU (2.10 GHz) and 16 GB RAM.
4.1 Comparison with MAs
In this section, SGOA will be compared with some classical
and novel algorithms on the IEEE CEC2017 benchmark test
set. The test set can be divided into four parts. T he details
of these functions are shown in Table 1.
To ensure the fairness of competition, all algorithms will
be tested in the same environment, and the external param-
eters are set to the same value, as shown in Table 2. The
MAs involved in the comparison are as follows:
• Differential Evolution Algorithm (DE) [68]
• GWO [33]
13
Engineering with Computers
• WOA [35]
• Moth-Flame Optimization Algorithm (MFO) [69]
• GOA [36]
• Salp swarm algorithm (SSA) [70]
• Bat Algorithm (BA) [71]
• Sine Cosine Algorithm (SCA) [72]
• Muti-Verse Optimization Algorithm (MVO) [73]
• Ant Lion Optimization Algorithm (ALO) [74]
with comparison to other MAs, including DE, GWO,
WOA, MFO, GOA, SSA, BA, SCA, MVO, ALO, the SGOA
testing results are shown in Table 3. Figures in Table 3 indi-
cate the Avg. and Stdv. index of each algorithm after multi-
ple runs on the function. Moreover, the population size was
30, the dimensionality of variable dimension functions was
set to 30, and iteration was set to 1000, respectively.
From the results in Table 3, it can be revealed that the
best value obtained by SGOA is better than that obtained by
other algorithms in almost all test functions, and ranks first
in more than half of the test functions. Therefore, in this test
set, SGOA is easier to find the optimal solution than other
MAs.
In the F3 function in Fig. 4, the optimal value obtained
by SGOA operation is the closest to the global optimal value
of all values. Compared with GOA, the search ability of
the proposed algorithm on unimodal function is greatly
improved. Also, at the beginning of F3 function, the value
obtained is far less than that of other functions. There is no
local optimal solution for F1–F3 function, so these three
functions are quite valid to evaluate the basic performance of
the MAs. The Levy flight operation in the simulated anneal-
ing mechanism helps to extend new searching areas. To sum
up, SGOA has increased the detail processing method based
on the original algorithm, so the performance has got great
improvement. In F4 function, all algorithms come close to
the optimal solution, while SGOA is even weak with BA
at the beginning, but with the increase of iterations, SGOA
finally surpasses all other algorithms to reach the global
optimal solution. For F7 function, it can be shown that it is
in the optimal solution of all algorithms from the beginning
to the end of iteration. According to the figure, its result is
better than other types of algorithms on the F10 problem.
In the hybrid functions, we take the most representative
functions (F14 and F16) for example. From the two func-
tions, it is occurred that the curve corresponding to SGOA
is far superior to other MAs in finding the minimum value.
Such a phenomenon can also be found in functions repre-
sented by composition functions (F26 and F29). Therefore,
from the results of these functions, it exists that SGOA can
find the best value even in complex functions. The addition
of simulated annealing mechanism enables GOA to effec-
tively jump out of the local area and expand the solution.
Engineering with Computers

Table 3  Comparison of SGOA and MAs on IEEE CEC2017 problem

F1 F2 F3
Avg Stdv Avg Stdv Avg Stdv

SGOA 1.0909E+05 7.3218E+04 6.6092E+10 3.6200E+11 3.0299E+02 1.1233E+00

DE 9.9217E+03 5.1297E+03 3.0208E+29 8.6638E+29 1.3183E+05 2.4015E+04
GWO 1.9491E+09 1.3758E+09 1.8386E+32 7.5874E+32 4.4971E+04 1.0322E+04
WOA 7.6612E+08 4.5195E+08 6.6990E+35 3.6671E+36 2.6085E+05 8.8282E+04
MFO 9.8470E+09 8.7011E+09 3.1395E+36 1.6396E+37 1.4567E+05 6.1480E+04
GOA 2.1054E+06 2.0731E+06 1.8518E+30 7.3839E+30 1.2143E+04 5.4996E+03
SSA 1.4456E+09 9.5863E+08 3.4833E+32 9.4337E+32 6.6863E+04 1.9861E+04
BA 1.8823E+07 2.4196E+06 6.3259E+06 1.3451E+07 2.0256E+03 1.2585E+03
SCA 1.7266E+10 2.4537E+09 3.1025E+36 7.8779E+36 6.2966E+04 1.4026E+04
MVO 3.6387E+05 1.1016E+05 4.2048E+12 9.1309E+12 5.7555E+02 1.9199E+02
ALO 2.8349E+03 3.5340E+03 1.1963E+15 4.7639E+15 1.0840E+05 3.9564E+04
F4 F6 F6
Avg Stdv Avg Stdv Avg Stdv

SGOA 4.7840E+02 1.2990E+01 6.1066E+02 3.0559E+01 6.0191E+02 1.7746E+00

DE 4.9954E+02 1.0124E+01 6.7200E+02 9.3080E+00 6.0000E+02 1.3242E−04
GWO 6.0121E+02 9.8582E+01 6.1794E+02 4.2326E+01 6.0925E+02 3.7050E+00
WOA 7.6928E+02 9.9817E+01 8.3304E+02 5.9629E+01 6.7371E+02 1.1533E+01
MFO 1.0464E+03 6.3484E+02 6.9754E+02 4.0354E+01 6.3623E+02 1.1774E+01
GOA 5.0875E+02 2.8501E+01 6.6537E+02 4.4716E+01 6.4452E+02 1.2953E+01
SSA 7.1988E+02 1.1507E+02 7.2661E+02 4.7878E+01 6.5898E+02 1.0147E+01
BA 5.0282E+02 2.1952E+01 8.5060E+02 5.1291E+01 6.7554E+02 1.1325E+01
SCA 2.1687E+03 6.0091E+02 8.0951E+02 2.4320E+01 6.5982E+02 7.0528E+00
MVO 4.9366E+02 1.2306E+01 6.1023E+02 3.2389E+01 6.2060E+02 1.0261E+01
ALO 5.0859E+02 2.7560E+01 6.5962E+02 4.4968E+01 6.4321E+02 7.0389E+00
F7 F8 F9
Avg Stdv Avg Stdv Avg Stdv

SGOA 7.8338E+02 1.7416E+01 8.9919E+02 1.9425E+01 1.4481E+03 1.4397E+03

DE 9.0147E+02 1.2654E+01 9.6694E+02 9.6876E+00 1.0438E+03 6.6648E+01
GWO 8.8381E+02 3.9598E+01 8.9275E+02 2.4610E+01 1.8949E+03 4.7825E+02
WOA 1.2635E+03 9.7676E+01 1.0389E+03 5.1200E+01 1.0381E+04 3.4449E+03
MFO 1.0947E+03 1.6031E+02 1.0082E+03 4.6796E+01 6.9387E+03 2.4471E+03
GOA 9.1439E+02 4.8456E+01 9.5777E+02 3.2105E+01 4.6087E+03 2.1770E+03
SSA 1.1509E+03 8.4487E+01 9.9382E+02 3.3715E+01 6.2417E+03 1.0301E+03
BA 1.6875E+03 2.0282E+02 1.0600E+03 6.5353E+01 1.4981E+04 4.9802E+03
SCA 1.1918E+03 4.7537E+01 1.0889E+03 2.5906E+01 7.0160E+03 2.2006E+03
MVO 8.5910E+02 4.4689E+01 9.0808E+02 2.9720E+01 4.1803E+03 2.6114E+03
ALO 1.0107E+03 8.6785E+01 9.3558E+02 3.4653E+01 4.1020E+03 1.6141E+03
F10 F11 F12
Avg Stdv Avg Stdv Avg Stdv

SGOA 4.3892E+03 4.5564E+02 1.2046E+03 3.5952E+01 1.8089E+06 9.3270E+05

DE 7.3040E+03 3.1636E+02 1.4196E+03 1.2132E+02 1.8162E+07 7.1432E+06
GWO 4.9258E+03 1.5412E+03 1.8041E+03 6.2651E+02 9.4107E+07 1.0112E+08
WOA 6.8194E+03 7.5771E+02 6.1401E+03 2.7933E+03 2.0819E+08 1.6561E+08
MFO 5.7588E+03 7.1356E+02 4.6815E+03 5.8366E+03 3.6059E+08 6.7565E+08
GOA 5.2751E+03 6.7523E+02 1.4436E+03 9.3542E+01 2.1488E+07 1.7990E+07

13
 Engineering with Computers

Table 3  (continued)
F10 F11 F12
Avg Stdv Avg Stdv Avg Stdv

SSA 5.9056E+03 9.4176E+02 1.8875E+03 3.2402E+02 1.8868E+08 1.9882E+08

BA 5.9527E+03 7.9907E+02 1.3515E+03 7.1931E+01 1.3057E+07 8.8147E+06
SCA 8.7064E+03 2.7051E+02 3.1119E+03 8.9605E+02 2.2176E+09 7.1150E+08
MVO 4.5595E+03 7.9896E+02 1.3346E+03 5.8508E+01 1.0947E+07 9.0849E+06
ALO 5.3454E+03 7.7260E+02 1.3145E+03 6.2251E+01 1.2519E+07 1.0617E+07
F13 F14 F15
Avg Stdv Avg Stdv Avg Stdv

SGOA 1.0328E+05 4.5182E+04 1.8505E+03 2.1415E+02 4.0634E+04 2.2098E+04

DE 1.1495E+06 9.4677E+05 1.5882E+05 1.2802E+05 2.0716E+05 1.3850E+05
GWO 2.0240E+07 5.5754E+07 3.6295E+05 5.4873E+05 4.0317E+05 8.2706E+05
WOA 7.7476E+05 4.6743E+05 1.3741E+06 1.5083E+06 5.5078E+05 9.2587E+05
MFO 9.0827E+07 3.0736E+08 2.2071E+05 3.3476E+05 5.5702E+04 5.2725E+04
GOA 1.5920E+05 1.0527E+05 5.3312E+04 4.9527E+04 9.6675E+04 9.8683E+04
SSA 1.1232E+05 8.3653E+04 4.8864E+05 4.4598E+05 5.0704E+04 2.4838E+04
BA 1.0124E+06 2.4312E+05 2.9080E+04 2.1369E+04 1.8504E+05 8.7922E+04
SCA 8.4833E+08 5.3106E+08 4.2234E+05 3.0933E+05 3.2687E+07 3.5636E+07
MVO 1.5685E+05 8.2138E+04 2.8304E+04 2.8403E+04 5.8881E+04 3.2535E+04
ALO 1.0202E+05 5.0193E+04 8.2807E+04 7.9163E+04 4.6588E+04 2.7599E+04
F16 F17 F18
Avg Stdv Avg Stdv Avg Stdv

SGOA 2.0773E+03 1.4591E+02 1.9739E+03 1.1315E+02 3.7190E+04 1.6669E+04

DE 2.6569E+03 1.7882E+02 2.0148E+03 7.6880E+01 1.8774E+06 7.9535E+05
GWO 2.5528E+03 3.5484E+02 2.0362E+03 1.6594E+02 9.1543E+05 9.9421E+05
WOA 3.9695E+03 5.4216E+02 2.6642E+03 3.3160E+02 7.9745E+06 9.8469E+06
MFO 3.2741E+03 3.2270E+02 2.4717E+03 2.7426E+02 2.5930E+06 4.4778E+06
GOA 2.8803E+03 2.7965E+02 2.1249E+03 1.7612E+02 6.6881E+05 7.6066E+05
SSA 3.2335E+03 3.4685E+02 2.4259E+03 2.4102E+02 3.0932E+06 3.9875E+06
BA 3.6547E+03 5.2084E+02 2.9345E+03 3.2153E+02 4.2234E+05 3.1187E+05
SCA 3.9210E+03 2.6760E+02 2.6817E+03 1.6586E+02 8.7261E+06 5.3615E+06
MVO 2.6666E+03 2.5900E+02 2.0840E+03 1.8181E+02 3.1776E+05 1.6227E+05
ALO 3.1409E+03 3.5665E+02 2.4570E+03 3.3723E+02 7.0092E+05 6.6152E+05
F19 F20 F21
Avg Stdv Avg Stdv Avg Stdv

SGOA 1.5554E+04 8.1547E+03 2.3085E+03 1.6035E+02 2.4148E+03 2.7654E+01

DE 1.8680E+05 1.4784E+05 2.3518E+03 1.0551E+02 2.4708E+03 9.7146E+00
GWO 1.9768E+06 5.6904E+06 2.4115E+03 1.3477E+02 2.4034E+03 3.9499E+01
WOA 1.3928E+07 1.2845E+07 2.8090E+03 2.0621E+02 2.6173E+03 5.3086E+01
MFO 7.7392E+06 2.2891E+07 2.6752E+03 2.1635E+02 2.4930E+03 5.2956E+01
GOA 3.7529E+06 2.6730E+06 2.6203E+03 2.1467E+02 2.4384E+03 2.7630E+01
SSA 8.5255E+06 8.7303E+06 2.6731E+03 2.1613E+02 2.4956E+03 4.2385E+01
BA 1.9470E+06 1.1317E+06 3.0227E+03 2.7270E+02 2.6216E+03 5.8388E+01
SCA 5.9137E+07 2.6317E+07 2.8336E+03 1.3412E+02 2.5880E+03 1.9941E+01
MVO 8.3889E+05 8.3421E+05 2.5262E+03 1.8599E+02 2.4191E+03 3.6255E+01
ALO 2.2592E+06 1.5462E+06 2.6489E+03 2.1696E+02 2.4359E+03 2.8381E+01

13
Engineering with Computers

Table 3  (continued)
F22 F23 F24
Avg Stdv Avg Stdv Avg Stdv

SGOA 5.3328E+03 1.4869E+03 2.7524E+03 3.1377E+01 2.9768E+03 4.6694E+01

DE 5.0321E+03 1.9366E+03 2.8187E+03 1.1974E+01 3.0175E+03 1.2923E+01
GWO 5.2859E+03 2.1674E+03 2.7640E+03 4.5715E+01 2.9393E+03 5.8608E+01
WOA 7.5543E+03 2.0904E+03 3.1224E+03 9.9169E+01 3.1945E+03 6.8036E+01
MFO 6.1975E+03 1.6195E+03 2.8349E+03 3.6607E+01 2.9835E+03 2.5516E+01
GOA 5.0148E+03 2.0202E+03 2.8047E+03 6.1774E+01 2.9517E+03 4.0027E+01
SSA 4.2040E+03 2.2641E+03 2.8918E+03 5.6725E+01 3.0333E+03 6.2542E+01
BA 6.9922E+03 1.7641E+03 3.2936E+03 1.3976E+02 3.3356E+03 1.4130E+02
SCA 9.1291E+03 2.0575E+03 3.0413E+03 3.9160E+01 3.2232E+03 3.9388E+01
MVO 5.5680E+03 1.3996E+03 2.7519E+03 2.4392E+01 2.9133E+03 3.8163E+01
ALO 4.8713E+03 2.1974E+03 2.8294E+03 5.3537E+01 3.0000E+03 5.0163E+01
F25 F26 F27
Avg Stdv Avg Stdv Avg Stdv

SGOA 2.8881E+03 4.4208E+00 3.7315E+03 1.0694E+03 3.2000E+03 1.0914E−04

DE 2.8878E+03 3.3665E−01 5.3235E+03 1.1316E+02 3.2202E+03 3.3471E+00
GWO 2.9901E+03 4.2882E+01 4.7206E+03 4.9107E+02 3.2521E+03 2.1136E+01
WOA 3.0769E+03 4.5400E+01 8.0572E+03 1.3245E+03 3.4478E+03 1.2444E+02
MFO 3.2774E+03 3.7079E+02 5.7245E+03 5.2158E+02 3.2514E+03 2.4002E+01
GOA 2.9217E+03 2.6409E+01 4.9009E+03 8.6740E+02 3.2442E+03 2.7524E+01
SSA 3.1074E+03 8.2225E+01 5.9909E+03 1.2898E+03 3.4003E+03 1.0294E+02
BA 2.9076E+03 2.1979E+01 9.0574E+03 1.6314E+03 3.4606E+03 1.3705E+02
SCA 3.4148E+03 1.2966E+02 7.6230E+03 4.2891E+02 3.4910E+03 6.4992E+01
MVO 2.8900E+03 7.7805E+00 4.7867E+03 2.8272E+02 3.2214E+03 1.4676E+01
ALO 2.9330E+03 2.2401E+01 5.5023E+03 1.0504E+03 3.3802E+03 6.5984E+01
F28 F29 30
Avg Stdv Avg Stdv Avg Stdv

SGOA 3.3000E+03 5.8248E−02 3.5051E+03 1.2350E+02 1.9577E+05 1.4415E+05

DE 3.2623E+03 1.9202E+01 3.9506E+03 1.2864E+02 1.5269E+05 9.1849E+04
GWO 3.4169E+03 5.3640E+01 3.8474E+03 2.1762E+02 8.0088E+06 7.4436E+06
WOA 3.4813E+03 8.0907E+01 5.3006E+03 4.9248E+02 3.3516E+07 2.9399E+07
MFO 4.3509E+03 9.8239E+02 4.2794E+03 2.6576E+02 4.3462E+05 6.1409E+05
GOA 3.2890E+03 4.4151E+01 4.1203E+03 2.4949E+02 8.9026E+06 6.4330E+06
SSA 3.5467E+03 1.9238E+02 4.7677E+03 3.4469E+02 2.5391E+07 2.2268E+07
BA 3.2353E+03 3.4671E+01 4.8959E+03 5.4016E+02 4.4409E+06 2.0990E+06
SCA 4.1625E+03 2.4197E+02 5.0211E+03 2.6901E+02 1.5983E+08 6.1573E+07
MVO 3.2362E+03 2.4579E+01 3.9528E+03 2.1312E+02 3.1011E+06 2.7001E+06
ALO 3.2689E+03 2.9664E+01 4.5572E+03 3.2584E+02 5.1035E+06 3.0344E+06
Overall rank
Rank  + / = /- ARV

SGOA 1  ~  1.833E+00

DE 4 21/3/6 4.400E+00
GWO 3 22/1/7 4.833E+00
WOA 10 30/0/0 9.500E+00
MFO 7 27/0/3 7.733E+00
GOA 5 27/0/3 5.067E+00

13

Table 3  (continued)
Overall rank
Rank
SSA 8 27/1/2
BA 9 28/2/0
SCA 11
MVO 2 21/2/7
ALO 6 24/2/4
In Fig. 4, the curve corresponding to SGOA can converge
to a good effect in the first few iterations. Moreover, the
quality (i.e., the minimum value) of the solution it achieves
is much higher than that of other algorithms with faster con-
vergence speed in the early phase. One of the reasons why
SGOA has this performance is that under the effect of SA,
the algorithm can discard the current solution and find a bet-
ter solution. In the later stage of iteration, most algorithms
have little effect in searching for better solutions. At this
point, it is much more difficult to find a better solution than
in the early stage, but once the algorithm breaks through
the constraint, the solution obtained is often better than that
obtained by other algorithms. In addition, from the decline
rate of SGOA’s convergence curve, it can make actions to
find a very good solution in a short time.
Also, it is clear from the symbol "+/=/−" that the optimal
function value of SGOA is superior to the original algorithm
in the other ten test functions in most cases. According to
the Friedman assessment results in Table 3, SGOA has the
lowest ARV value among the 30 benchmarks. Therefore,
in this case, the best variant of GOA is the best xxx among
other competitors.
4.2 Comparison with advanced MAs
In this section, CEC2017 test set is taken to compare the
advanced algorithms with SGOA. The external parameters
(such as the number of iterations, etc.) and the running
environment of all algorithms are set to the same. And, the
population size was set to 30, the dimensionality of vari-
able dimension functions was 30, and iterations was 1000,
respectively.
To ensure the fairness of competition, all algorithms will
be tested in the same environment, and the external param-
eters are set to the same value. The advanced algorithms
involved in the comparison are as follows:
• Improved variant of GOA (IGOA) [51]
• Global and local real-coded genetic algorithms (GL25)
[75]
• Comprehensive learning particle swarm optimizer
(CLPSO) [76]
13
Engineering with Computers
 + / = /- ARV
7.400E+00
7.367E+00
30/0/0 1.000E+01
3.067E+00
4.800E+00
• Particle swarm optimization with an aging leader and
challengers (ALCPSO) [77]
• Chaotic local search and Gaussian mutation-enhanced
MFO (CLSGMFO) [78]
• Lévy mutation, Gaussian mutation and Cauchy mutation
MFO (LGCMFO) [79]
• Bat algorithm with random wind power (RCBA) [80]
• Chaotic bat algorithm (CBA) [81]
• Lévy flight trajectory-based whale optimization algo-
rithm (LWOA) [82]
• An enhanced associative learning-based exploratory
whale optimizer (BMWOA) [83]
The specific comparison results of SGOA and advanced
algorithms are formulated in Table 4. The table shows the
average value and Stdv of the best solution of each algo-
rithm after 30 independent operations and 1000 iterations in
each independent operation. According to the table, SGOA
can achieve good results in most test functions and ranks
first in 18 different functions out of 30 CEC2017 functions.
Therefore, SGOA conquers other algorithms to find a better
solution in most benchmark functions.
In the unimodal functions, taking F2 and F3 as represent-
atives, it is clear that SGOA can achieve better solutions than
other algorithms. For F2, the whole process of SGOA shows
a powerful search ability. For F3, the solution obtained by
SGOA at the beginning is better than GL25, CLPSO and
some other functions. Although they coincide with IGOA
in the later stage, according to the detailed diagram, SGOA
get the better performance and implement. In conclusion,
the superiority of SGOA in dealing with unimodal function
is proved.
In simple multimodal functions, from F4 to F10, all func-
tions are very close to the optimal solution, while F4, F6,
F7, F8, F9, F10 and other functions, SGOA has the best
effect of all algorithms Therefore, SGOA makes full use of
SA mechanism in multimodal function, which makes the
process of obtaining the optimal solution further.
In hybrid function, taking the test functions F14 and F18
in Fig. 5 as examples, the curve corresponding to SGOA can
get satisfactory results in convergence speed and quality.
Engineering with Computers

Fig. 4  Convergence curves of
SGOA compared with MAs on
CEC 2017 (First column: F3,
F7, F14, F26; second column:
F4, F10, F16, F29)

13
 Engineering with Computers

Table 4  Comparison of SGOA and advanced algorithm on IEEE CEC2017 problem

F1 F2 F3
Avg Stdv Avg Stdv Avg Stdv

SGOA 1.0886E+05 7.5860E+04 2.2550E+02 2.2454E+01 3.0321E+02 1.0530E+00

IGOA 1.9336E+06 1.1750E+06 1.6899E+10 5.1091E+10 3.2155E+02 8.9989E+00
GL25 6.4036E+09 2.1722E+09 1.5889E+35 4.3918E+35 1.6206E+05 3.0944E+04
CLPSO 1.1726E+09 2.9448E+08 8.7422E+30 1.9209E+31 1.2144E+05 2.1993E+04
ALCPSO 7.6730E+03 6.8896E+03 1.0645E+18 5.1568E+18 6.1099E+04 1.2016E+04
CLSGMFO 7.1644E+03 6.4320E+03 7.4000E+17 3.4800E+18 1.2769E+04 4.7203E+03
LGCMFO 6.6377E+03 7.0669E+03 2.4551E+17 1.2026E+18 1.4083E+04 4.5703E+03
RCBA 2.1802E+05 6.5653E+04 4.9983E+06 1.8491E+07 2.0075E+04 1.9060E+04
CBA 1.1078E+04 3.8105E+04 1.8716E+11 6.4791E+11 2.6687E+04 1.7405E+04
LWOA 2.0596E+06 6.1086E+05 9.2725E+11 1.7237E+12 5.5764E+04 3.1946E+04
BMWOA 3.3558E+07 1.7084E+07 1.2240E+24 5.7975E+24 5.0275E+04 8.1490E+03
F4 F5 F6
Avg Stdv Avg Stdv Avg Stdv

SGOA 4.7197E+02 2.2602E+01 6.1265E+02 2.9647E+01 6.0229E+02 2.4922E+00

IGOA 4.9515E+02 1.3564E+01 6.1912E+02 3.2708E+01 6.2154E+02 1.0467E+01
GL25 1.6582E+03 5.5487E+02 8.0828E+02 2.4817E+01 6.4758E+02 8.0398E+00
CLPSO 8.4887E+02 7.3653E+01 7.1705E+02 1.8759E+01 6.2258E+02 3.1644E+00
ALCPSO 5.0653E+02 3.5541E+01 6.0778E+02 3.6475E+01 6.0603E+02 6.1665E+00
CLSGMFO 4.9724E+02 2.5409E+01 6.4087E+02 2.7249E+01 6.1975E+02 1.4393E+01
LGCMFO 4.9107E+02 2.8327E+01 6.3473E+02 2.7027E+01 6.0906E+02 9.8198E+00
RCBA 4.9091E+02 1.8399E+01 7.9422E+02 4.4376E+01 6.6679E+02 1.0764E+01
CBA 5.1135E+02 2.1593E+01 7.8340E+02 6.6066E+01 6.7528E+02 1.2416E+01
LWOA 5.1490E+02 2.6105E+01 7.9081E+02 6.8386E+01 6.6024E+02 1.0136E+01
BMWOA 5.4705E+02 3.1166E+01 7.7420E+02 4.3651E+01 6.5914E+02 8.2103E+00
F7 F8 F9
Avg Stdv Avg Stdv Avg Stdv

SGOA 7.8436E+02 1.6124E+01 8.9853E+02 1.5249E+01 1.0948E+03 8.7579E+02

IGOA 8.6707E+02 3.7065E+01 9.2370E+02 3.3153E+01 7.0332E+03 3.0557E+03
GL25 1.1636E+03 3.3282E+01 1.0879E+03 3.8440E+01 6.4440E+03 1.5138E+03
CLPSO 1.0153E+03 2.0736E+01 1.0157E+03 1.9099E+01 6.0520E+03 1.0690E+03
ALCPSO 8.5797E+02 4.0822E+01 9.0941E+02 3.5416E+01 1.7930E+03 8.8197E+02
CLSGMFO 8.8042E+02 4.7233E+01 9.2206E+02 2.7292E+01 3.3751E+03 1.2584E+03
LGCMFO 8.8818E+02 3.8440E+01 9.1653E+02 2.7481E+01 2.4703E+03 8.5621E+02
RCBA 1.7679E+03 2.6086E+02 1.0235E+03 4.3900E+01 7.8081E+03 2.4001E+03
CBA 1.7394E+03 3.1387E+02 1.0230E+03 4.9410E+01 8.4256E+03 3.0016E+03
LWOA 1.1437E+03 7.1383E+01 1.0109E+03 5.0848E+01 8.0108E+03 2.5668E+03
F10 F11 F12
Avg Stdv Avg Stdv Avg Stdv

SGOA 4.1159E+03 5.5250E+02 1.2109E+03 4.9043E+01 2.2525E+06 9.1601E+05

IGOA 4.5146E+03 7.3305E+02 1.3245E+03 8.3265E+01 7.2387E+06 4.7167E+06
GL25 9.4858E+03 4.7379E+02 9.7614E+03 3.3853E+03 3.5162E+08 2.7622E+08
CLPSO 7.1099E+03 3.3180E+02 2.5146E+03 5.6226E+02 1.5930E+08 7.2538E+07
ALCPSO 4.3598E+03 5.7326E+02 1.2452E+03 5.4170E+01 6.0473E+05 7.0085E+05
CLSGMFO 5.1066E+03 6.0080E+02 1.2615E+03 7.5518E+01 9.8337E+05 7.5788E+05
LGCMFO 4.8476E+03 6.4854E+02 1.2393E+03 4.5374E+01 1.1666E+06 1.0082E+06

13
Engineering with Computers

Table 4  (continued)
F10 F11 F12
Avg Stdv Avg Stdv Avg Stdv

RCBA 5.7425E+03 6.5462E+02 1.2765E+03 5.0244E+01 6.8210E+06 4.6884E+06

CBA 5.9109E+03 6.6087E+02 1.3314E+03 7.2761E+01 1.6513E+07 1.0923E+07
LWOA 5.5541E+03 5.0546E+02 1.2841E+03 4.8565E+01 1.0424E+07 6.2725E+06
BMWOA 6.0034E+03 6.5255E+02 1.4276E+03 1.1577E+02 3.2350E+07 1.9343E+07
F13 F14 F15
Avg Stdv Avg Stdv Avg Stdv

SGOA 7.8745E+04 3.8010E+04 1.8653E+03 2.1534E+02 3.4395E+04 2.0294E+04

IGOA 2.0128E+05 1.0913E+05 4.1558E+04 3.3200E+04 1.3014E+05 8.8577E+04
GL25 3.5337E+07 3.5589E+07 1.1037E+06 8.0297E+05 4.1534E+05 9.2844E+05
CLPSO 7.8263E+07 4.5011E+07 2.4186E+05 1.8266E+05 2.8033E+06 2.5247E+06
ALCPSO 2.1187E+04 2.0800E+04 4.5066E+04 6.5849E+04 1.6828E+04 1.3511E+04
CLSGMFO 5.6457E+04 7.8994E+04 4.8712E+04 5.7661E+04 7.3654E+03 6.2909E+03
LGCMFO 3.5382E+04 2.6749E+04 3.4027E+04 3.0659E+04 7.3463E+03 9.1445E+03
RCBA 1.9223E+05 1.3680E+05 2.7955E+04 2.3847E+04 6.3793E+04 5.3505E+04
CBA 1.7146E+05 2.4881E+05 3.3604E+04 3.0076E+04 8.0206E+04 8.6373E+04
LWOA 2.2137E+05 1.2511E+05 4.2526E+04 3.4301E+04 8.6225E+04 5.5143E+04
BMWOA 1.3874E+05 8.0197E+04 4.2255E+05 3.7646E+05 3.7519E+04 2.9068E+04
F16 F17 F18
Avg Stdv Avg Stdv Avg Stdv

SGOA 2.1850E+03 1.1723E+02 1.9549E+03 8.6665E+01 3.6851E+04 1.4430E+04

IGOA 2.6549E+03 3.1771E+02 2.2161E+03 1.8858E+02 5.0763E+05 3.4086E+05
GL25 4.2399E+03 2.2295E+02 2.7778E+03 1.8009E+02 1.5917E+07 1.3887E+07
CLPSO 3.1696E+03 1.7776E+02 2.2878E+03 1.2307E+02 1.4549E+06 6.3556E+05
ALCPSO 2.6756E+03 2.9777E+02 2.2394E+03 2.2470E+02 7.1774E+05 1.1014E+06
CLSGMFO 2.7346E+03 3.0295E+02 2.2180E+03 1.8618E+02 2.5932E+05 3.3953E+05
LGCMFO 2.7821E+03 2.7805E+02 2.1858E+03 2.0384E+02 2.4095E+05 1.5698E+05
RCBA 3.4597E+03 4.4583E+02 2.7342E+03 3.3084E+02 2.9864E+05 1.9149E+05
CBA 3.6870E+03 4.6745E+02 2.9741E+03 3.4044E+02 7.8308E+05 6.1251E+05
LWOA 3.2254E+03 3.8387E+02 2.4943E+03 2.8563E+02 1.0876E+06 9.0789E+05
BMWOA 3.3318E+03 3.8876E+02 2.3973E+03 2.2775E+02 2.0598E+06 2.2572E+06
F19 F20 F21
Avg Stdv Avg Stdv Avg Stdv

SGOA 2.4128E+04 1.5461E+04 2.3829E+03 1.6346E+02 2.4387E+03 3.1091E+01

IGOA 1.6019E+05 1.2360E+05 2.5535E+03 1.9676E+02 2.4146E+03 3.2871E+01
GL25 1.1483E+06 1.9570E+06 3.1010E+03 2.7080E+02 2.5963E+03 1.3712E+01
CLPSO 4.5905E+06 3.9427E+06 2.5415E+03 1.1805E+02 2.5098E+03 3.9839E+01
ALCPSO 1.5995E+04 1.8305E+04 2.4555E+03 1.8094E+02 2.4058E+03 2.4025E+01
CLSGMFO 7.8875E+03 9.7063E+03 2.4879E+03 1.6892E+02 2.4137E+03 3.8055E+01
LGCMFO 6.3893E+03 4.0522E+03 2.3909E+03 1.7331E+02 2.4036E+03 1.8523E+01
RCBA 2.0541E+05 1.0869E+05 2.9946E+03 2.5450E+02 2.6242E+03 7.4872E+01
CBA 1.7846E+06 1.2613E+06 3.0461E+03 2.9142E+02 2.6280E+03 7.3054E+01
LWOA 4.3049E+05 2.1401E+05 2.8343E+03 2.1230E+02 2.5744E+03 5.7393E+01
BMWOA 2.8980E+05 2.9148E+05 2.7105E+03 1.9962E+02 2.5230E+03 5.9434E+01

13
 Engineering with Computers

Table 4  (continued)
F22 F23 F24
Avg Stdv Avg Stdv Avg Stdv

SGOA 5.5527E+03 1.1967E+03 2.7660E+03 3.7475E+01 2.9988E+03 4.5097E+01

IGOA 4.8142E+03 1.7980E+03 2.7681E+03 3.4341E+01 2.9344E+03 3.1409E+01
GL25 3.2462E+03 1.1536E+03 3.0113E+03 4.3357E+01 3.1659E+03 3.5812E+01
CLPSO 4.3162E+03 1.5588E+03 2.9107E+03 1.9722E+01 3.0865E+03 2.4430E+01
ALCPSO 4.2461E+03 2.0273E+03 2.8171E+03 6.8624E+01 2.9822E+03 7.5844E+01
CLSGMFO 2.3010E+03 1.7649E+00 2.7969E+03 5.4860E+01 2.9567E+03 4.6308E+01
LGCMFO 2.3007E+03 1.3471E+00 2.7799E+03 2.6299E+01 2.9460E+03 3.4020E+01
RCBA 7.0353E+03 1.2367E+03 3.3576E+03 1.4322E+02 3.5628E+03 1.5565E+02
CBA 7.2500E+03 1.3445E+03 3.3436E+03 1.4322E+02 3.3723E+03 1.5063E+02
LWOA 6.5751E+03 1.5271E+03 3.0190E+03 1.1692E+02 3.2084E+03 1.0149E+02
BMWOA 4.9511E+03 2.6762E+03 2.9732E+03 6.8543E+01 3.1101E+03 7.4460E+01
F25 F26 F27
Avg Stdv Avg Stdv Avg Stdv

SGOA 2.8897E+03 4.7140E+00 3.5913E+03 9.2651E+02 3.2000E+03 1.5319E−04

IGOA 2.8893E+03 8.6953E+00 4.9098E+03 5.9458E+02 3.2195E+03 1.6983E+01
GL25 3.2791E+03 1.1495E+02 7.1433E+03 1.0453E+03 3.4886E+03 5.5477E+01
CLPSO 3.0666E+03 3.7060E+01 6.1742E+03 4.2177E+02 3.3273E+03 2.6420E+01
ALCPSO 2.8950E+03 1.3224E+01 5.1322E+03 7.0158E+02 3.2457E+03 2.3706E+01
CLSGMFO 2.8959E+03 1.6789E+01 4.0841E+03 1.1542E+03 3.2979E+03 5.4881E+01
LGCMFO 2.8948E+03 1.5920E+01 4.1086E+03 1.2985E+03 3.2910E+03 4.0571E+01
RCBA 2.9033E+03 1.9173E+01 9.0901E+03 2.3321E+03 3.5419E+03 2.4291E+02
CBA 2.9035E+03 2.2417E+01 9.4179E+03 2.3114E+03 3.3964E+03 1.1877E+02
LWOA 2.9032E+03 1.7357E+01 6.5173E+03 1.3539E+03 3.3020E+03 6.8783E+01
BMWOA 2.9673E+03 3.6625E+01 6.5437E+03 9.2823E+02 3.3193E+03 6.5321E+01
BMWOA 8 28/0/2 7.767E+00
F28 F29 F30
Avg Stdv Avg Stdv Avg Stdv

SGOA 3.3000E+03 4.7854E−02 3.5510E+03 1.4408E+02 1.8081E+05 1.6499E+05

IGOA 3.2385E+03 2.1175E+01 3.7613E+03 1.3874E+02 7.1721E+05 3.4101E+05
GL25 4.0303E+03 3.4757E+02 5.1626E+03 3.0750E+02 1.3200E+07 7.5106E+06
CLPSO 3.7533E+03 1.0798E+02 4.2933E+03 1.6779E+02 6.4261E+06 5.3927E+06
ALCPSO 3.2422E+03 3.6841E+01 3.8582E+03 2.1809E+02 1.5162E+04 5.1469E+03
CLSGMFO 3.2182E+03 1.7723E+01 3.9222E+03 2.5586E+02 6.9507E+04 1.4473E+05
LGCMFO 3.2411E+03 2.8303E+01 3.7660E+03 1.9587E+02 2.4719E+04 2.3653E+04
RCBA 3.2104E+03 3.3990E+01 5.0239E+03 4.6390E+02 2.0176E+06 1.1941E+06
CBA 3.2320E+03 2.3505E+01 5.4464E+03 5.6091E+02 5.1633E+06 2.8902E+06
LWOA 3.2521E+03 2.2175E+01 4.3144E+03 3.0547E+02 1.9227E+06 9.6660E+05
BMWOA 3.3406E+03 3.4280E+01 4.6788E+03 3.1856E+02 4.4185E+06 2.5737E+06
Overall rank
Rank +/=/− ARV

SGOA 1 ~ 2.433E+00
IGOA 5 22/4/4 4.333E+00
GL25 11 29/1/0 9.800E+00
CLPSO 9 29/1/0 8.067E+00
ALCPSO 3 15/8/7 3.667E+00

13
Engineering with Computers

Table 4  (continued)
Overall rank
Rank +/=/− ARV
CLSGMFO 4 17/10/3 3.767E+00
LGCMFO 2 16/10/4 2.900E+00
RCBA 6 29/1/0 7.367E+00
CBA 10 27/2/1 8.367E+00
LWOA 7 29/1/0 7.533E+00
BMWOA 8 28/0/2 7.767E+00

Moreover, SGOA can rank first in F11, F14, F16, F17, F18
and F20.
In the last ten composition functions, SGOA’s advantages
are not particularly obvious. However, it can still occupy
first rank in F23, F26, F27, F29. At the same time, LGC-
MFO and ALCPSO are the most threatening functions to
SGOA. Moreover, SGOA converges well in the early stage
and slowly in the later stage. This is because the algorithm is
more powerful in developing the unexplored solution space
in the early stage, and meanwhile, it can obtain the optimal
solution better. This is related to the added SA mechanism,
because in the annealing scale, the probability of discard-
ing the current solution and finding other solutions becomes
smaller and smaller as the number of iterations changes.
According to the symbol of “+/=/−”, the proposed SGOA
is superior to IGOA, GL25, CLPSO, ALCPSO, CLSGMFO,
LGCMFO, RCBA, CBA, LWOA and BMWOA on 22, 29,
29, 15, 17, 16, 29, 27, 29 and 28 out of 30 cases, and equal
to them on 4, 1, 1, 8, 10, 10, 1, 2, 1 and 0 out of 30 problems,
and inferior to them on 4, 0, 0, 7, 3, 4, 0, 1. 0 and 2 out of
30 ones, respectively.
To sum up, SGOA is superior to the listed comparison
algorithm in terms of processing all functions. In addition,
from the last part of the table, the average ranking value of
SGOA is only 2.43, which means 0.5 lower than the LGC-
MFO in the second place.
4.3 Engineering problems
In this part, SGOA was applied to three kinds of mathemati-
cal modeling with constraints: welded beam design (WBD),
pressure vessel design (PVD) and speed reducer design
(SRD) problem. In many mathematical models, there are
often many constraints to regulate, so it is imperative to find
a way to deal with these constraints. Some penalty functions
are introduced in [84], such as co-evolutionary, death pen-
alty, etc. Among them, the death penalty is an intermediate
function to deal with a variety of related models, The MAs
can automatically eliminate the solution that does not meet
the conditions. Therefore, SGOA, with the function of the
death penalty, was adopted to solve three critical problems
in mathematical modeling.
4.3.1 Welded beam design problem
The WBD is a kind of composite beam. The commonly used
welded steel beam consists of I-section and box section com-
posed of upper and lower flange plates and webs. The latter
is more expensive in materials and complicated in fabrica-
tion process, but it has larger bending and torsional rigidity,
which is appropriate for the situations with high lateral load
and torsional requirements or limited in beam height. The
WBD is transformed into a mathematical model. Its goal
is to find the following four factors to minimize the cost of
welding beam: shear stress ( 𝜏  ), bending stress ( 𝜃 ), buckling
load ( Pc ) and deflection ( 𝛿 ). The problem involves the fol-
lowing four variables: welding seam thickness ( h ), welding
joint length ( l  ), beam width ( t  ) and beam thickness ( b ). The
mathematical model is as follows:
[ ]
Consider x⃗(=) x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 = [hltb] ( )
2
Minimize f x⃗( )= 1.10471x
( ) 1 + 0.04811x3 x4 14.0 + x4
Subject to g1 (x⃗) = 𝜏 (x⃗ ) − 𝜏max ≤ 0
g2 (x⃗) = 𝜎( x⃗) − 𝜎max ≤ 0
g3 (x⃗) = 𝛿 x⃗ − 𝛿max ≤ 0
g4 (x⃗) = x1 − x4 (≤)0
g5 (x⃗) = P − PC x⃗ ≤ 0
g6 (x⃗) = 0.125 − x1 ≤ 0
( )
g7 x⃗ = 1.10471x12 + 0.04811x3 x4 14.0 + x2 − 5.0 ≤ 0

13
 Engineering with Computers

Fig. 5  Convergence curves of
SGOA compared with advanced
algorithm on CEC 2017 (First
column: F2, F9, F14, F26; sec-
ond column: F3, F10, F18, F29)

13
Engineering with Computers

Table 5  The comparison results Algorithm The optimal value for variables Best cost
of the WBD problem
h l t b

SGOA 0.202382 3.314602 9.036272 0.205754 1.698741

BA 2 0.1 3.174303 2 1.818138
RO 0.203687 3.528467 9.004233 0.207241 1.735344
HS 0.2442 6.2231 8.2915 0.2433 2.3807
IHS 0.20573 3.47049 9.03662 0.20573 1.7248
Random method [88] 0.45750 4.73130 5.08530 0.66000 4.11850
Simple method [88] 0.27920 5.62560 7.75120 0.27960 2.53070
David method [88] 0.24340 6.25520 8.29150 0.24440 2.38410

Variable range 0.1 ≤ x1 ≤ 2, 0.1 ≤ x2 ≤ 10, 0.1 ≤ x3 ≤ 10, 0.1 ≤ x4 ≤ 2,

� � � x
where 𝜏 x⃗ = (𝜏 � )2 + 2𝜏 � 𝜏 �� 2R2 + (𝜏 �� )2 ,
� �
x2
𝜏 � = √ P , 𝜏 �� = MR , M = P L + ,
�2x1 x2 � �
J 2

x22 2
x +x
R= + 12 3 ,
�√4
� � �2 ��
x22 x1 +x3
J=2 2x1 x2 4 + 2
� � 6PL � � 6PL3
𝜎 x⃗ = x x2 , 𝛿 x⃗ = Ex x2 ,
4 3 � 4 3
x2 x6 � � �
� � 4.013E 3364 x3 E
PC x⃗ = L2
1 − 2L 4G
,
P = 6000lb,
L = 14 in., 𝛿max = 0.25 in., E = 30 × 106 psi, G = 12 × 106 psi
𝜏max = 13600 psi, 𝜎max = 30000 psi.

h = 0.2024, l = 3.3146, t = 9.0363, b = 0.2058 , the manu-

This optimization problem was also well solved by other
facturing cost of WBD can reach 1.698741. Therefore, the
algorithms. Kaveh et al. [85] adopted RO to solve this prob-
improved SGOA has good potential in solving the WBD
lem. Lee et al. [86] proposed HS and applied it to the WB
problem.
problem. The final optimal result is 2.3807. The improved
HS (IHS) [87]was also tested.
4.3.2 Pressure vessel design problem
The value obtained by SGOA in Table  5 is the
best of all values. Specifically, compared with some
PVD problem refers to the maximum pressure that the
methods, the cost has been reduced several times.
thickness of the shell of pressure vessel can bear at the
This fact shows that when the parameters are set
specified design temperature. Because of the typicality

Table 6  Comparison results for Algorithm The optimal value for variables Best cost
PVD problem
Ts Th r l

SGOA 0.816637 0.403014 42.209181 175.779778 5977.495118

BA 97.8015 98.10897 10.98606 200 7258.564
IHS 1.125000 0.625000 58.29015 43.69268 7197.7300
PSO 0.812500 0.437500 42.091266 176.746500 6061.0777
GA 0.937500 0.500000 48.329000 112.679000 6410.3811
ES 0.812500 0.437500 42.098087 176.640518 6059.7456
Lagrangian multiplier [91] 1.125000 0.625000 58.291000 43.690000 7198.0428
Branch-and-bound 1.125000 0.625000 47.700000 117.71000 8129.1036

13
 Engineering with Computers

Table 7  Comparison results for Algorithm The optimal value for variables Best cost
SRD problem
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7

SGOA 6.866813 0.605828 12.653421 7.941985 9.736686 3.628515 5.337909 2708.331033

WCA​ 3.500000 0.700000 17.000000 7.300000 7.715319 3.350214 5.286654 2994.471066
DEDS 3.5E+09 0.7E+09 17.000000 7.3E+09 7.715319 3.350214 5.286654 2994.471066
DELC 3.5E+09 0.7E+09 17.000000 7.3E+09 7.715319 3.350214 5.286654 2994.471066
HEAA 3.500022 0.700000 17.000012 7.300427 7.715377 3.350230 5.286663 2994.499107
MDE 3.500010 0.700000 17.000000 7.300156 7.800027 3.350221 5.286685 2996.356689
PSO-DE 3.500000 0.700000 17.000000 7.300000 7.800000 3.350214 5.286683 2996.348167

of vessel pressure measurement, this problem is often 6410.3811. Beyond that, evolution strategies (ES) [92] and
used as an application of structural design. Vessel pres- IHS [87] were used to deal with this work.
sure is closely related to materials, structures, and weld- Table 6 reflects the comparison results of SGOA and
ing [89]. In the PVD problem, the variables ( that
) need( to
) some algorithms on PVD. From the table, the result of
be optimized are the thickness of the shell Ts  , head Th  , SGOA is the best among all algorithms, and the cost is the
the inner radius (r) and the range of the section minus head smallest. According to the results of SGOA, we can see that
(l) , respectively.
[ ]The[ constraints] are as follows: Consider when Ts = 0.8166, Th = 0.4030, r = 42.2092, l = 175.7798 ,
x⃗ = x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 = Ts, Th , R, L we can get the best value 5977.495118. In summary, SGOA
( ) 2 2 2
Objective f x⃗( min
) = 0.6224x1 x3 x4 + 1.7781x3 x1 + 3.1661x4 x1 + 19.84x3 x1
Subject to g1 (x⃗) = −x1 + 0.0193x3 ≤ 0
g2 x⃗ = −x3 + 0.00954x3 ≤ 0
( )
g3 x⃗ = −𝜋x4 x32 − 43 𝜋x33 + 1296000 ≤ 0
( )
g4 x⃗ = x4 − 240 ≤ 0

Variable ranges 0 ≤ x1 ≤ 99 has a strong ability to deal with PVD problems.

0 ≤ x2 ≤ 99
10 ≤ x3 ≤ 200 4.3.3 Speed reducer design problem
10 ≤ x4 ≤ 200
The SRD problem is designed to minimize the weight of the
PVD problem has been studied by many scholars. He reducer under relevant constraints [92]. The variables x1 to
et al. [90] proposed that using PSO algorithm to settle this x7 represent the face width (b) , module of teeth (m) , number
problem, and the minimum value reached 6061.0777. Del of teeth in
et al. [91] used GA to tackle and got a minimum cost of ( the
) pinion (z) , length of the first shaft between
bearings
( ) l 1  , length of the second
( ) shaft between bearings
( )
l2 and the diameter of first d1 and second shafts d2  ,
respectively. The mathematical model is shown as follows:

13
Engineering with Computers

( ) ( ) ( )
Objective f (x) = 0.7854x1 x22 3.3333x32 + 14.9334x3 − 43.0934 − 1.508x1 x62 + x72 + 7.4777 x63 + x73
Subject to g1 (x) = x 27
x2 x
−1≤0
1 2 3
397.5
g2 (x) = x1 x22 x32
−1≤0
1.93x43
g3 (x) = x2 x64 x3
−1≤0
1.93x53
g4 (x) = x x4 x
−1≤0
[2( 7 3 ) ]1∕2
745x42
x2 x3
+16.9×106
g5 (x) = 110x63
−1≤0
[( )2 ]1∕2
745x4 6
x x
+157.5×10
2 3
g6 (x) = 85x73
−1≤0
x2 x3
g7 (x) = 40 −1≤0
5x
g8 (x) = x 2 − 1 ≤ 0
x1
g9 (x) = 12x1 − 1 ≤ 0
2
1.5x6 +1.9
g10 (x) = x4
−1 ≤0
1.1x7 +1.9
g11 (x) = x5
−1 ≤0

Fig. 6  Flowchart of the proposed SGOA-KELM model

13
 Engineering with Computers

where 2.6 ≤ x1 ≤ 3.6

0.7 ≤ x2 ≤ 0.8
17 ≤ x3 ≤ 28
7.3 ≤ x4 ≤ 8.3
7.3 ≤ x5 ≤ 8.3
2.9 ≤ x6 ≤ 3.9
5.0 ≤ x7 ≤ 5.5

In this problem, SGOA is compared with WCA [93],

DEDS [94], DELC [95], HEAA [96], MDE [97], PSO-
DE [98]. From the results in the Table 7, we can see that
when x1 = 6.8668, x2 = 0.6058 , x3 = 12.6534, x4 = 7.9420 ,
x5 = 9.7367 , x6 = 3.6285 , x7 = 5.3379 , SGOA can find the
minimum cost of all algorithms. The minimum consumption
value is 2708.331033. The main reason why SGOA can get Fig. 7  The classification performance obtained by the five models in
terms of four criteria on the Cleveland heart dataset
the best value is the algorithm model can pay attention to
the diversity of solutions and the quality of solutions in the
limited feature space. The connection weight β between the hidden layer and the
output layer does not need to be adjusted iteratively, but is
4.4 Parameter optimization of kernel extreme determined at one time by solving equations.
learning machine
The output function of ELM is:
Extreme learning machine (ELM) is a kind of machine
learning system or method based on Feedforward Neural ∑
M
( )
Network (FNN) proposed by Huang et al. [63] in 2004, f (x) = 𝛽i g wi xi + bi = g(x)𝛽 (14)
i=1
which is suitable for supervised learning and unsupervised [ ]
learning. The advantage of ELM compared with FNN is: where 𝛽 = 𝛽1 , … , 𝛽M is output weight vector representing
[nodes connecting
] hidden layer and network output layer,
The weights and thresholds involved in the network can wi , … , wM is the input weight
[ vector of input] layer node
be set randomly, and after setting, there is no need to and hidden layer node, g(x) = g1 (x), … , gM (x) is the output
adjust. This is not the same as BP neural network, which vector of the hidden layer with input x . ELM has a faster
needs to adjust the weight and threshold continuously in speed in classification operation because of its fast calcula-
the reverse direction. So we can reduce the computation tion of parameter 𝛽  . The calculation formula of parameter
by half here. 𝛽 is as follows:
( )−1
1
𝛽 = HT + HH T T (15)
C
Table 8  The results obtained by SGOA-KELM on the Cleveland where H is the output matrix of hidden-layer and T is the
heart dataset target matrix. The coefficient C in the formula is a positive
Fold ACC​ SENS SPES MCC integer, to ensure the stability of the algorithm. So, combin-
ing Eq. (14) with Eq. (15), we can get
1 0.7333 0.7143 0.7500 0.4643
2 0.8387 0.7500 0.9333 0.6920 ( )−1
1
f (x) = g(x)𝛽 = g(x)H T + HH T T (16)
3 0.8065 0.7647 0.8571 0.6193 C
4 0.8667 0.8000 0.9333 0.7399
5 0.8000 0.9231 0.7059 0.6290 KELM is constructed based on the above ELM by adding
6 0.9032 0.8182 0.9500 0.7863 kernel functions. The kernel matrix can be expressed in the
7 0.8000 0.8000 0.8000 0.5774 following form:
8 0.6333 0.5833 0.6667 0.2472
WKELM = HH T ∶ WKELM = h(xi ) × h(xj ) = K(xi , xj ) (17)
9 0.7667 0.7273 0.7895 0.5083
10 0.7667 0.7500 0.8000 0.5232 Combining Eq. (16) with Eq. (17), the calculation for-
Avg 0.7915 0.7631 0.8186 0.5787 mula of KELM is obtained.
Std 0.0748 0.0867 0.0984 0.1553

13
Engineering with Computers

Table 9  Financial ratios Feature Financial ratios Feature Financial ratios

X1 Net profit/total assets X6 Sales/total assets

X2 Current assets/current liabilities X7 Market value of equity/total assets
X3 Retained earnings/total assets X8 Cash flow/total debt
X4 Working capital/total assets X9 Current assets/total assets
X5 EBIT/total assets X10 Cash /current liabilities
*
 EBIT earning before interests and taxes)

Table 10  The results obtained by SGOA-KELM on the JPNBDS commonly used kernel function is Gaussian kernel, as shown
Fold ACC​ SENS SPES MCC
in the following formula:
( )
#1 0.8667 1.0000 0.7778 0.7638 K(u, v) = exp −𝛾u − v2 (19)
#2 0.8667 0.9091 0.7500 0.6591
#3 0.8667 1.0000 0.7778 0.7638
where uandv are input value, coefficient 𝛾 is used to control
#4 0.8667 1.0000 0.7143 0.7559
Gaussian function distribution.
#5 0.9375 0.8571 1.0000 0.8783
It is reported that the two key parameters in KELM has
#6 0.8667 0.8000 0.9000 0.7000
great effect on the performance of KELM Kernel extreme
#7 0.8667 0.8889 0.8333 0.7222
learning machines [99–104]. In this section, we apply SGOA
#8 0.7333 0.7143 0.7500 0.4643
to the optimization of two key parameters in KELM, C and 𝛾.
#9 0.6667 0.5714 0.7500 0.3273
#10 0.8125 0.7000 1.0000 0.6831
C indicates the penalty coefficient, which is the tolerance
Avg 0.8350 0.8441 0.8253 0.6718
of error. The higher C  , the lower the tolerance of error,
Std 0.0787 0.1465 0.1057 0.1606
which is prone to overfitting, and vice versa, which is
prone to underfitting. Therefore, either too large or too
small C will lead to poor generalization ability.
𝛾 is an inherent parameter that comes with the Gaussian
kernel function and implicitly determines the distribution
of the data when mapped to the new feature space. The
larger the 𝛾  , the less support vector there is, and con-
versely, the more.

In this study, we set the dimension of individual popula-

tion generated by SGOA initialization as 2, which is used to
represent C and 𝛾 , respectively. It then iterates and optimizes
to generate the parameter values for the optimal KELM
model.
The resultant of SGOA-KELM model was used for deal-
ing with the Cleveland heart and financial stress prediction
problem.
Figure  6 shows the framework flow chart of SGOA-
Fig. 8  The classification performance obtained by the five models in
KELM. As shown in the figure, the whole framework is
terms of four criteria on the JPNBDS
divided into two parts: parameter optimization and KELM
classification. When optimizing parameters, we use the
� � SGOA proposed, and divide the whole data set into five
� �−1 ⎡ K x, x1 ⎤� �−1 parts, four of which are training sets. First, through five
1 1
f (x) = g(x)H T + HH T T = ⎢ �M � ⎥ + WKELM T
C ⎢ ⎥ C cross-validations, we select the optimal parameter pair, and
⎣ K x, xN ⎦
then we use the parameter pair for training to get the opti-
(18)
mization model. After that, in KELM classification, we use
in the above formula, we replace the original h(x) with tenfold cross validation to perform prediction tasks.
K(u, v) . In the actual operation of the algorithm, the most

13

To test the effectiveness of SGOA-KELM in parameter
optimization, it competes with the following algorithms:
KNN [105], Classification Tree, BP neural network [106],
GOA-KELM. Here are four criteria: classification accuracy
(ACC), sensitivity (SENS), specificity (SPES) and Matthews
correlation coefficient (MCC).
TP + TN
ACC = × 100%
TP + FP + FN + TN
TP
SENS = × 100%
TP + FN
TN
SPES = × 100%
FP + TN
TP × TN − FP × FN
MCC = √ × 100%
(TP + FP) × (TP + FN) × (TN + FP) × (TN + FN)
where TP and TN is the true positive and negative samples,
FP and FN is the false positive and negative samples.
4.4.1 Cleveland heart dataset
The Cleveland heart data set is obtained from the famous
UCI database. It is composed of 303 instances. Among the
most attributes, 14 of them are mainly used. These 14 attrib-
utes are also used by all published experiments. The specific
attributes are as follows:
Num (the predicted attribute)
Age
Sex
Cp (chest pain type)
Trestbps (resting blood pressure (in mm Hg on admission
to the hospital))
Chol (serum cholestoral in mg/dl)
Fbs ((fasting blood sugar > 120  mg/dl) (1 = true;
0 = false))
Restecg (resting electrocardiographic results)
Thalach (maximum heart rate achieved)
Exang (exercise-induced angina (1 = yes; 0 = no))
Oldpeak (depression induced by exercise relative to rest)
Slope (the slope of the peak exercise ST segment)
Ca (number of major vessels (0–3) colored by flourosopy)
Thal (3 = normal; 6 = fixed defect; 7 = reversable defect)
From Table 8, it can be seen that SGOA-KELM achieves
the average results of 79.156% ACC, 76.31% SENS, 81.86%
SPES, and 57.81% MCC.
The comparison results between SGOA-KELM and other
four models can be observed in Fig. 7. The algorithm mod-
els that took part in the comparison all worked well, but
13
Engineering with Computers
SGOA-KELM still stood out. It can be seen from the ACC
index that the ACC of SGOA-KELM is the highest after ten-
fold cross validation, which is nearly 10% higher than that of
BP with the lowest accuracy. Sensitivity represents the pro-
portion of patients that are correctly detected, and it meas-
ures the ability to identify sick cases. SGOA-KELM is also
ahead of other models in this index. Specificity is defined
(20) to the proportion of the recognition error of negative cases
in all negative cases and measures the classifier’s recogni-
tion ability of negative cases. In this index, GOA-KELM is
slightly better than SGOA-KELM. Finally, MCC measure is
(21)
used. The model composed of swarm intelligence algorithm
is better than the traditional machine learning method in
effect, and SGOA-KELM is a little better than GOA-KELM.
(22)
4.4.2 Japanese bankruptcy dataset (JPNBDS)
The financial ratio of JPNBDS is abstracted from the real
(23) financial statements of Japan from 1995 to 2009. The dataset
contains 152 instances, of which the bankrupt sample and
the non-bankrupt sample account for half, respectively, and
it can be used to predict financial stress. In terms of finan-
cial stress prediction, according to the literature [107], ten
important financial ratios that can reflect the financial situ-
ation of the company are selected as prediction models for
training. The financial ratios are shown in Table 9.
From Table 10, it can be seen that SGOA-KELM achieves
the average results of 83.5% ACC, 84.41% SENS, 82.53%
SPES, and 67.18% MCC.
The comparison finding in Fig. 8 between SGOA-KELM
and other four models is related with average results and
standard deviations on four rating standards. In the figure,
it is obvious that the effect of individual model is quite dif-
ferent under different indicators. This is because KELM
belongs to neural network model, which has great depend-
ence on parameter setting, and different algorithms have
various effects on optimizing parameters, so the classifica-
tion effect of KELM is also diverse. As can be seen from
the figure above, SGOA-KELM is weaker than KNN and
TREE in SPES index, but still has certain advantages in
other indicators. In addition, compared with GOA-KELM
in SPES, SGOA-KELM has made great progress. SPES
refers to the percentage of correct judgment of actual posi-
tive cases. SGOA-KELM model is more advantageous than
other excellent models in the most important evaluation
index ACC, and accuracy as well, compared with the origi-
nal GOA-KELM model. It is deduced that SGOA can find a
more suitable value in the parameter optimization of KELM
to improve the accuracy of classification.
Engineering with Computers
5 Conclusions and future work
In this study, an improved algorithm SGOA, integrates SA
strategy into GOA and enhances the performance of the
original algorithm. The proposed SGOA was compared with
ten MAs and ten advanced MAs. The experiment findings
estimate that SGOA can beat other algorithms in 17 func-
tions compared with the original heuristic functions. When
coming to advanced functions, it shows much better perfor-
mance than other peers in 18 functions. In addition to testing
the operation of SGOA itself, it is applied to the parameter
optimization of KELM problems and several engineering
design problems such as WBD, PVD, and I-beam design.
The experimental results verify that SGOA has achieved
quite promising results in these two aspects. What’s more,
it is not difficult to find that SGOA has excellent perfor-
mance in solving continuous problems, but its ability to
solve binary problems is still insufficient. The application
of the proposed algorithm to binary problems [108–110] will
also be one of the tasks of the next research.
For the future direction, there are many valuable aspects
worthy of exploration. For example, the proposed SGOA
can be applied to more areas such as the optimization of
the structure and weights of machine learning models
[111–120], information fusion [121], social evolution mod-
elling [122], recommender system [123], parameters identi-
fication of photovoltaic cell models [124–132]. In addition,
the exploration of SGOA to multi-objective [133] and other
complex environments will also be a research direction in
the near future.
Acknowledgment  This research is supported by National Natural
Science Foundation of China (62076185, 71803136, U1809209), the
Ministry of Education of Humanities and Social Science Project of
Wenzhou Business College (20YJA790090), the Characteristic Inno-
vation Project of Guangdong Universities in 2020 (2020KTSCX302),
Guangdong Natural Science Foundation (2018A030313339), Scientific
Research Team Project of Shenzhen Institute of Information Technol-
ogy (SZIIT2019KJ022).
References
1. Wang G-G, Tan YJITOC (2017) Improving metaheuristic algo-
rithms with information feedback models. IEEE Trans Cybern
49(2):542–555
2. Wang G-G et al (2014) Chaotic krill herd algorithm. Inf Sci
274:17–34
3. Gao D, Wang G-G, Pedrycz WJITOFS (2020) Solving fuzzy
job-shop scheduling problem using de algorithm improved by
a selection mechanism. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst. https​://doi.
org/10.1109/TFUZZ​.2020.30035​06
4. Wang G-G et al (2019) Monarch butterfly optimization. Neural
Comput Appl 31(7):1995–2014
5. Yi J-H et al (2018) An improved NSGA-III algorithm with adap-
tive mutation operator for big data optimization problems. Future
Gener Comput Syst 88:571–585
6. Zhang X et al (2019) Robust low-rank tensor recovery with rec-
tification and alignment. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell.
https​://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI​.2019.29290​43
7. Deng W (2020) An enhanced MSIQDE algorithm with
novel multiple strategies for global optimization problems.
IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst. https​://doi.org/10.1109/
TSMC.2020.30307​92
8. Deng W et al (2020) An effective improved co-evolution ant
colony optimization algorithm with multi-strategies and its appli-
cation. Int J Bio-Inspir Comput 16(3):158–170
9. Deng W et al (2020) An improved quantum-inspired differential
evolution algorithm for deep belief network. IEEE Trans Instrum
Meas. https​://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2020.29832​33
10. Zhao H et al (2019) Performance prediction using high-order
differential mathematical morphology gradient spectrum entropy
and extreme learning machine. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas. https​
://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2019.29484​14
11. Song Y et al (2021) MPPCEDE: multi-population parallel co-
evolutionary differential evolution for parameter optimization.
Energy Convers Manag 228:113661
12. Chen H et al (2020) Multi-population differential evolution-
assisted Harris hawks optimization: framework and case studies.
Future Gener Comput Syst 111:175–198
13. Wang M, Chen H (2020) Chaotic multi-swarm whale optimizer
boosted support vector machine for medical diagnosis. Appl Soft
Comput 88:105946. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.10594​6
14. Zhao X et al (2019) Chaos enhanced grey wolf optimization
wrapped ELM for diagnosis of paraquat-poisoned patients. Com-
put Biol Chem 78:481–490
15. Wang M et al (2017) Toward an optimal kernel extreme learning
machine using a chaotic moth-flame optimization strategy with
applications in medical diagnoses. Neurocomputing 267:69–84
16. Shen L et al (2016) Evolving support vector machines using fruit
fly optimization for medical data classification. Knowl Based
Syst 96:61–75
17. Xu X, Chen HL (2014) Adaptive computational chemotaxis
based on field in bacterial foraging optimization. Soft Comput
18(4):797–807
18. Chen H et al (2019) A balanced whale optimization algorithm
for constrained engineering design problems. Appl Math Model
71:45–59
19. Luo J et al (2019) Multi-strategy boosted mutative whale-inspired
optimization approaches. Appl Math Model 73:109–123
20. Yu H et al (2020) Chaos-enhanced synchronized bat optimizer.
Appl Math Model 77:1201–1215
21. Chen H et al (2020) Efficient multi-population outpost fruit fly-
driven optimizers: framework and advances in support vector
machines. Expert Syst Appl 142:112999
22. Chen H, Wang M, Zhao X (2020) A multi-strategy enhanced
sine cosine algorithm for global optimization and constrained
practical engineering problems. Appl Math Comput 369:124872.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2019.12487​2
23. Zhang X et al (2020) Gaussian mutational chaotic fruit fly-built
optimization and feature selection. Expert Syst Appl 141:112976
24. Song S et al (2020) Dimension decided Harris hawks optimi-
zation with Gaussian mutation: balance analysis and diversity
patterns. Knowl Based Syst. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosy​
s.2020.10642​5
25. Zhao D et al (2020) Ant colony optimization with horizontal
and vertical crossover search: fundamental visions for multi-
threshold image segmentation. Expert Syst Appl. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.11412​2
26. Zhang Y et al (2020) Towards augmented kernel extreme learn-
ing models for bankruptcy prediction: algorithmic behavior
and comprehensive analysis. Neurocomputing. https​: //doi.
org/10.1016/j.neuco​m.2020.10.038
13

27. Wang X et al (2020) Multi-population following behavior-driven
fruit fly optimization: a Markov chain convergence proof and
comprehensive analysis. Knowl Based Syst 210:106437. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.knosy​s.2020.10643​7
28. Zhao D et al (2020) Chaotic random spare ant colony optimi-
zation for multi-threshold image segmentation of 2D Kapur
entropy. Knowl Based Syst. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosy​
s.2020.10651​0
29. Holland JH (1992) Genetic algorithms. Sci Am 267(1):66–72
30. Dorigo M, Blum C (2005) Ant colony optimization theory: a
survey. Theor Comput Sci 344(2–3):243–278
31. James K, Gireesha OB (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In:
Proceedings of IEEE international conference on neural net-
works, vol 4. https​://doi.org/10.1109/ICNN.1995.48896​8  opment of enhanced chaotic Grasshopper optimization algo-
32. Mirjalili S (2016) Dragonfly algorithm: a new meta-heuristic
optimization technique for solving single-objective, discrete, and
multi-objective problems. Neural Comput Appl 27(4):1053–1073
33. Mirjalili S, Mirjalili SM, Lewis A (2014) Grey wolf optimizer.
Adv Eng Softw 69:46–61
34. Rashedi E, Nezamabadi-pour H, Saryazdi S (2009) GSA: a gravi-
tational search algorithm. Inf Sci 179(13):2232–2248
35. Mirjalili S, Lewis A (2016) The whale optimization algorithm.
Adv Eng Softw 95:51–67
36. Saremi S, Mirjalili S, Lewis A (2017) Grasshopper optimisation
algorithm: theory and application. Adv Eng Softw 105:30–47
37. Zhou H et al (2020) An improved Grasshopper optimizer for
global tasks. Complexity 2020:4873501
38. Xu Z et al (2020) Orthogonally-designed adapted grasshop-
per optimization: a comprehensive analysis. Expert Syst Appl
150:113282
39. Tumuluru P, Ravi B (2017) GOA-based DBN: Grasshopper opti-
mization algorithm-based deep belief neural networks for cancer
classification. Int J Appl Eng Res 12(24):14218–14231
40. Zhao H, Zhao H, Guo S (2018) Short-term wind electric power
forecasting using a novel multi-stage intelligent algorithm. Sus-
tainability (Switzerland) 10(3):881
41. Sultana U et al (2018) Placement and sizing of multiple distrib-
uted generation and battery swapping stations using grasshopper
optimizer algorithm. Energy 165:408–421
42. Liang H et al (2019) Modified grasshopper algorithm-based mul-
tilevel thresholding for color image segmentation. IEEE Access
7:11258–11295
43. Omar AI et al (2019) An improved approach for robust control of
dynamic voltage restorer and power quality enhancement using
grasshopper optimization algorithm. ISA Trans 95:110–129
44. Zhang X et al (2018) A parameter-adaptive VMD method based
on grasshopper optimization algorithm to analyze vibration
signals from rotating machinery. Mech Syst Signal Process
108:58–72
45. Mafarja M et al (2018) Evolutionary population dynamics and
Grasshopper Optimization approaches for feature selection prob-
lems. Knowl Based Syst 145:125–145
46. Jumani TA et al (2018) Optimal voltage and frequency control of
an islanded microgrid using grasshopper optimization algorithm.
Energies 11(11):3191
47. Ibrahim HT et al (2019) A grasshopper optimizer approach for
feature selection and optimizing SVM parameters utilizing real
biomedical data sets. Neural Comput Appl 31(10):5965–5974
48. Liu J et al (2018) Coordinated operation of multi-integrated
energy system based on linear weighted sum and Grasshopper
optimization algorithm. IEEE Access 6:42186–42195
49. Wu J et al (2017) Distributed trajectory optimization for multiple
solar-powered UAVs target tracking in urban environment by
adaptive Grasshopper optimization algorithm. Aerosp Sci Tech-
nol 70:497–510
13
Engineering with Computers
50. Saxena A (2019) A comprehensive study of chaos embedded
bridging mechanisms and crossover operators for grasshopper
optimisation algorithm. Expert Syst Appl 132:166–188
51. Luo J et al (2018) An improved grasshopper optimization algo-
rithm with application to financial stress prediction. Appl Math
Model 64:654–668
52. Jia H et al (2019) Hybrid grasshopper optimization algorithm
and differential evolution for global optimization. J Intell Fuzzy
Syst 37(5):6899–6910
53. Zakeri A, Hokmabadi A (2019) Efficient feature selection method
using real-valued grasshopper optimization algorithm. Expert
Syst Appl 119:61–72
54. Saxena A, Shekhawat S, Kumar R (2018) Application and devel-
rithms. Model Simul Eng 2018:1–14
55. Jia H et al (2019) Hybrid Grasshopper optimization algorithm
and differential evolution for multilevel satellite image segmenta-
tion. Remote Sens 11(9):1134
56. Ewees AA, Abd Elaziz M, Houssein EH (2018) Improved grass-
hopper optimization algorithm using opposition-based learning.
Expert Syst Appl 112:156–172
57. Yue X, Zhang H (2019) Grasshopper optimization algorithm with
principal component analysis for global optimization. J Super-
comput 76:5609–5635
58. Arora S, Anand P (2019) Chaotic grasshopper optimiza-
tion algorithm for global optimization. Neural Comput Appl
31(8):4385–4405
59. Ghulanavar R, Dama KK, Jagadeesh A (2020) Diagnosis of faulty
gears by modified AlexNet and improved grasshopper optimiza-
tion algorithm (IGOA). J Mech Sci Technol 34(10):4173–4182
60. Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD Jr, Vecchi MP (1983) Optimization by
simulated annealing. Science 220(4598):671–680
61. LaTorre A, Pena JM (2017) A comparison of three large-scale
global optimizers on the CEC 2017 single objective real param-
eter numerical optimization benchmark. In: 2017 IEEE congress
on evolutionary computation, CEC 2017—proceedings
62. Alcalá-Fdez J et al (2009) KEEL: a software tool to assess evo-
lutionary algorithms for data mining problems. Soft Comput
13(3):307–318
63. Huang GB et al (2012) Extreme learning machine for regression
and multiclass classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part
B Cybern 42(2):513–529
64. Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD Jr, Vecchi MP (1983) Optimi-
zation by simulated annealing. Science (New York NY)
220(4598):671–680
65. Chechkin AV et al (2008) Introduction to the theory of Lévy
flights, in anomalous transport: foundations and applications. pp
129–162
66. Bäck T, Schwefel H-P (1993) An overview of evolutionary algo-
rithms for parameter optimization. Evol Comput 1(1):1–23
67. Derrac J et al (2011) A practical tutorial on the use of nonpara-
metric statistical tests as a methodology for comparing evolu-
tionary and swarm intelligence algorithms. Swarm Evol Comput
1(1):3–18
68. Storn R, Price K (1997) Differential evolution—a simple and
efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces.
J Glob Optim 11(4):341–359
69. Mirjalili S (2015) Moth-flame optimization algorithm: a
novel nature-inspired heuristic paradigm. Knowl Based Syst
89:228–249
70. Mirjalili S et al (2017) Salp swarm algorithm: a bio-inspired
optimizer for engineering design problems. Adv Eng Softw
114:163–191
71. Yang XS (2010) A new metaheuristic bat-inspired algorithm. In:
Studies in computational intelligence. pp 65–74
Engineering with Computers
72. Mirjalili S (2016) SCA: a sine cosine algorithm for solving opti-
mization problems. Knowl Based Syst 96:120–133
73. Mirjalili S, Mirjalili SM, Hatamlou A (2016) Multi-verse opti-
mizer: a nature-inspired algorithm for global optimization. Neu-
ral Comput Appl 27(2):495–513
74. Mirjalili S (2015) The ant lion optimizer. Adv Eng Softw
83:80–98
75. García-Martínez C et al (2008) Global and local real-coded
genetic algorithms based on parent-centric crossover operators.
Eur J Oper Res 185(3):1088–1113
76. Liang JJ et al (2006) Comprehensive learning particle swarm
optimizer for global optimization of multimodal functions. IEEE
Trans Evol Comput 10(3):281–295
77. Chen WN et al (2013) Particle swarm optimization with an aging
leader and challengers. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 17(2):241–258
78. Xu Y et al (2019) An efficient chaotic mutative moth-flame-
inspired optimizer for global optimization tasks. Expert Syst
Appl 129:135–155
79. Xu Y et al (2019) Enhanced moth-flame optimizer with muta-
tion strategy for global optimization. Inf Sci. https​ : //doi.
org/10.1016/j.ins.2019.04.022
80. Liang H et  al (2018) A hybrid bat algorithm for economic
dispatch with random wind power. IEEE Trans Power Syst
33(5):5052–5261
81. Adarsh BR et al (2016) Economic dispatch using chaotic bat
algorithm. Energy 96:666–675
82. Ling Y, Zhou Y, Luo Q (2017) Lévy flight trajectory-based whale
optimization algorithm for global optimization. IEEE Access
5:6168–6186
83. Heidari AA et al (2019) An enhanced associative learning-based
exploratory whale optimizer for global optimization. Neural
Comput Appl 32:5185–5211
84. Coello Coello CA (2002) Theoretical and numerical constraint-
handling techniques used with evolutionary algorithms: a sur-
vey of the state of the art. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
191(11–12):1245–1287
85. Kaveh A, Khayatazad M (2012) A new meta-heuristic method:
ray optimization. Comput Struct 112–113:283–294
86. Lee KS, Geem ZW (2005) A new meta-heuristic algorithm
for continuous engineering optimization: harmony search
theory and practice. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
194(36–38):3902–3933
87. Mahdavi M, Fesanghary M, Damangir E (2007) An improved
harmony search algorithm for solving optimization problems.
Appl Math Comput 188(2):1567–1579
88. Ragsdell KM, Phillips DT (1976) Optimal design of a class
of welded structures using geometric programming. J Eng Ind
98(3):97–97
89. Kannan BK, Kramer SN (1994) An augmented lagrange multi-
plier based method for mixed integer discrete continuous opti-
mization and its applications to mechanical design. J Mech Des
Trans ASME 116(2):405–411
90. He Q, Wang L (2007) An effective co-evolutionary particle
swarm optimization for constrained engineering design prob-
lems. Eng Appl Artif Intell 20(1):89–99
91. Deb K (1997) GeneAS: a robust optimal design technique for
mechanical component design, vol 185
92. Mezura-Montes E, Coello CAC (2008) An empirical study about
the usefulness of evolution strategies to solve constrained opti-
mization problems. Int J Gen Syst 37(4):443–473
93. Eskandar H et  al (2012) Water cycle algorithm—a novel
metaheuristic optimization method for solving constrained engi-
neering optimization problems. Comput Struct 110–111:151–166
94. Zhang M, Luo W, Wang X (2008) Differential evolution with
dynamic stochastic selection for constrained optimization. Inf
Sci 178(15):3043–3074
95. Wang L, Li LP (2010) An effective differential evolution with
level comparison for constrained engineering design. Struct
Multidiscip Optim 41(6):947–963
96. Wang Y et al (2009) Constrained optimization based on hybrid
evolutionary algorithm and adaptive constraint-handling tech-
nique. Struct Multidiscip Optim 37(4):395–413
97. Mezura-Montes E, Velázquez-Reyes J, Coello Coello CA (2006)
Modified differential evolution for constrained optimization. In:
2006 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, CEC 2006
98. Liu H, Cai Z, Wang Y (2010) Hybridizing particle swarm optimi-
zation with differential evolution for constrained numerical and
engineering optimization. Appl Soft Comput J 10(2):629–640
99. Zhao D et  al (2017) An effective computational model for
bankruptcy prediction using kernel extreme learning machine
approach. Comput Econ 49(2):325–341
100. Chen H et al (2020) An enhanced bacterial foraging optimization
and its application for training kernel extreme learning machine.
Appl Soft Comput 86:105884
101. Wang M et al (2017) Grey wolf optimization evolving kernel
extreme learning machine: application to bankruptcy prediction.
Eng Appl Artif Intell 63:54–68
102. Qiang L et al (2017) An enhanced grey wolf optimization based
feature selection wrapped kernel extreme learning machine for
medical diagnosis. Comput Math Methods Med 2017:1–15
103. Liu T et al (2015) A fast approach for detection of erythemato-
squamous diseases based on extreme learning machine with
maximum relevance minimum redundancy feature selection. Int
J Syst Sci 46(5):919–931
104. Chen H et al (2015) Using blood indexes to predict overweight
statuses: an extreme learning machine-based approach. PLoS
ONE 10(11):e0143003
105. Cover TM, Hart PE (1967) Nearest neighbor pattern classifica-
tion. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 13(1):21–27
106. Rumelhart DE, Hinton GE, Williams RJ (1986) Learn-
ing representations by back-propagating errors. Nature
323(6088):533–536
107. Kumar PR, Ravi V (2007) Bankruptcy prediction in banks and
firms via statistical and intelligent techniques—a review. Eur J
Oper Res 180(1):1–28
108. Zhang X et al (2020) Top-k feature selection framework using
robust 0–1 integer programming. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn
Syst. https​://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS​.2020.30092​09
109. Zhang Y et al (2020) Boosted binary Harris hawks optimizer
and feature selection. Eng Comput. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/s0036​
6-020-01028​-5
110. Yang C et al (2018) Superpixel-based unsupervised band selec-
tion for classification of hyperspectral images. IEEE Trans Geo-
sci Remote Sens 56(12):7230–7245
111. Chen HL et al (2016) An efficient hybrid kernel extreme learn-
ing machine approach for early diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease.
Neurocomputing 184:131–144
112. Hu L et al (2015) An efficient machine learning approach for
diagnosis of paraquat-poisoned patients. Comput Biol Med
59:116–124
113. Xia J et al (2017) Ultrasound-based differentiation of malig-
nant and benign thyroid Nodules: an extreme learning machine
approach. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 147:37–49
114. Zhang X et al (2020) Pyramid channel-based feature attention
network for image dehazing. Comput Vis Image Understand.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.cviu.2020.10300​3
115. Wang T et al (2020) Video deblurring via spatiotemporal pyra-
mid network and adversarial gradient prior. Comput Vis Image
Understand. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.cviu.2020.10313​5
116. Li Y et al (2019) Epileptic seizure detection in EEG signals using
sparse multiscale radial basis function networks and the Fisher
vector approach. Knowl Based Syst 164:96–106
13

117. Li Y et al (2020) Deep spatial-temporal feature fusion from
adaptive dynamic functional connectivity for MCI identification.
IEEE Trans Med Imaging 39(9):2818–2830
118. Li Y et al (2020) Epileptic seizure detection in EEG signals using
a unified temporal-spectral squeeze-and-excitation network.
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 28(4):782–794
119. Guan R et al (2020) Deep feature-based text clustering and its
explanation. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 14:1–1
120. Fei X et al (2020) Projective parameter transfer based sparse
multiple empirical kernel learning machine for diagnosis of brain
disease. Neurocomputing 413:271–283
121. Chen Z et al (2021) Information synergy entropy based multi-
feature information fusion for the operating condition identifica-
tion in aluminium electrolysis. Inf Sci 548:275–294
122. Xue X et al (2019) Social learning evolution (SLE): computa-
tional experiment-based modeling framework of social manufac-
turing. IEEE Trans Ind Inform 15(6):3343–3355
123. Wang D et al (2018) A content-based recommender system for
computer science publications. Knowl Based Syst 157:1–9
124. Ridha HM et al (2021) Multi-objective optimization and multi-
criteria decision-making methods for optimal design of stan-
dalone photovoltaic system: a comprehensive review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 135:110202. https​: //doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2020.11020​2
125. Chen H et al (2020) Parameters identification of photovoltaic
cells and modules using diversification-enriched Harris hawks
optimization with chaotic drifts. J Clean Prod 244:118778. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2019.11877​8
126. Chen H et al (2019) An opposition-based sine cosine approach
with local search for parameter estimation of photovoltaic mod-
els. Energy Convers Manag 195:927–942
13
Engineering with Computers
127. Abbassi A et al (2020) Parameters identification of photovol-
taic cell models using enhanced exploratory salp chains-based
approach. Energy 198:117333. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.energ​
y.2020.11733​3
128. Ridha HM et al (2020) Boosted mutation-based Harris hawks
optimizer for parameters identification of single-diode solar
cell models. Energy Convers Manag 209:112660. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.encon​man.2020.11266​0
129. Zhang H et  al (2020) Orthogonal Nelder-Mead moth flame
method for parameters identification of photovoltaic modules.
Energy Convers Manag 211:112764. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
encon​man.2020.11276​4
130. Jiao S et al (2020) Orthogonally adapted Harris hawks optimi-
zation for parameter estimation of photovoltaic models. Energy
203:117804. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.energ​y.2020.11780​4
131. Liu Y et al (2020) Horizontal and vertical crossover of Harris
hawk optimizer with Nelder-Mead simplex for parameter estima-
tion of photovoltaic models. Energy Convers Manag 223:113211.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.encon​man.2020.11321​1
132. Wang M et al (2020) Evaluation of constraint in photovoltaic
models by exploiting an enhanced ant lion optimizer. Sol Energy
211:503–521
133. Sun Y, Yen GG, Yi Z (2019) IGD indicator-based evolutionary
algorithm for many-objective optimization problems. IEEE Trans
Evol Comput 23(2):173–187
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.