See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/353197675

A New Hybrid Method for Global Optimization Based on the Bird Mating
Optimizer and the Differential Evolution

Conference Paper · February 2021

DOI: 10.1109/IEC52205.2021.9476147

CITATIONS READS

2 16

5 authors, including:

Haval Sadeeq Adnan Mohsin Abdulazeez

Duhok Polytechnic University Duhok Polytechnic University
8 PUBLICATIONS   38 CITATIONS    183 PUBLICATIONS   1,784 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Najdavan Abduljawad Kako Dilovan Zebari

Duhok Polytechnic University Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
7 PUBLICATIONS   28 CITATIONS    34 PUBLICATIONS   552 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Image Processing and Security View project

Different Model for Hand Gesture Recognition with a Novel Line Feature Extraction View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Diyar Zeebaree on 10 August 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 7th International Engineering Conference Research &Innovation amid Global Pandemic (IEC2021) Erbil, Iraq
A New Hybrid Method for Global Optimization Based on
the Bird Mating Optimizer and the Differential Evolution
2021 7th International Engineering Conference “Research & Innovation amid Global Pandemic" (IEC) | 978-1-6654-1283-4/20/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/IEC52205.2021.9476147
Haval T. Sadeeq Adnan M. Abdulazeez
Information Technology Dept. Presidency of Duhok
Duhok Polytechnic University, Polytechnic University, Duhok,
Duhok, Kurdistan Region, Iraq Kurdistan Region, Iraq
haval.tariq@dpu.edu.krd adnan.mohsin@dpu.edu.krd
Dilovan A. Zebari
Center of Scientific Research
and Development Nawroz University,
Duhok, Kurdistan Region, Iraq,
dilovan.majeed@nawroz.edu.krd
Abstract—Nature-inspired algorithms are often used by several
diverse areas of engineering and science due to their easiness and
versatility. Because metaheuristics operate by structurally
changing and improving an established problem, they can often be
extended to any optimization issues. The recent creation of meta-
heuristic algorithms has rendered them effective tools for solving
NP problems. This paper presents a hybrid meta-heuristic method
based on the Differential Evolution and Bird Mating Optimizer
techniques to solve problems of global optimization. Bird Mating
Optimizer is a novel method and is inspired by mating behavior of
birds. Bird Mating Optimizer has some drawbacks such as
producing poor results, trapping into local optima and slow
convergence speed. Therefore, to conquer these insufficient it is
hybridized with Differential Evolution approach. Differential
Evolution technique is utilized to retain a preferable balance
between both searches local and global. The performance and
effectiveness of new Differential Evolution and Bird Mating
Optimizer algorithm is tested and evaluated on 15 different
functions of benchmark. The results of the experiment have shown
the proposed technique possesses excellent performance in
convergence speed, stability, and robustness, as compared to the
well-known algorithms. It is proved that the Differential Evolution
and Bird Mating Optimizer algorithm is very effective and
superior to solve problems of global optimization. Experimental
results indicate that the proposed hybrid Differential Evolution
and Bird Mating Optimizer method is superior to previous
existing state-of-the-art metaheuristic algorithms.
Keywords— Bird Mating Optimizer, Global Optimization,
Hybrid Bird Mating Optimizer, Meta-heuristic Algorithms,
Unconstrained Optimization Problems.
I. INTRODUCTION
Modern optimization algorithms which typically based on
swarm intelligence, are often nature-inspired [1][2]. There are
different manners for inspiration and accordingly techniques
can be classified to several various types. Whilst almost all
these techniques have propensity to utilize some special and
features for updating the objective function [3][4]. For example,
genetic algorithm (GA) simulates Darwinian evolution
978-1-6654-1283-4/21/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE 54
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA. Downloaded on July 14,2021 at 14:45:18 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Najdavan A. Kako
Information Technology Dept.
Duhok Polytechnic University, Duhok,
Kurdistan Region, Iraq
najdavan.kako@dpu.edu.krd
Diyar Q. Zeebaree
Director of Research Center of
Duhok Polytechnic University,
Duhok, Kurdistan Region, Iraq
dqszeebaree@dpu.edu.krd
characteristics and concepts of biological systems. The
optimization process goes through crossover, mutation and then
the fittest gen will be selected [5]. Particle Swarm Optimization
(PSO) technique that is depends on the swarm conduct of both
fish as well as birds, the system which is described as system of
multi-agent may include features of this intelligence of swarm
group [6], Firefly Algorithm (FA) that is depends on the
features of flashing ideal conduct of fireflies in the tropic
regions [7][8] whereas another algorithm depending on the
echolocation conduct of micro bats called a Bat Algorithm
(BA) [9]. Also, there are some recent nature inspired
algorithms; for example, Harris Hawks Optimizer (HHO) is an
optimization algorithm inspired by the conducts of cooperative
as well as chasing patterns of predacious birds [10], Another
algorithm which is simulates the conduct of slaps swarming
during transportation when foraging in oceans called the Salp
Swarm Algorithm (SSA) [11], also the technique of Beetle
Antennae Search (BAS) which is inspired by the behavior of
searching of long-horn bug [12], Finally, Black Widow
Optimization (BWO) is an optimization technique that is
inspired by the single conduct of black widow spiders mating
[13].
Evolutionary algorithms look for the global optimal solution in
a search space by arbitrarily generating one or more solutions
for a given problem. This set of solutions is considered the set
of nominee solutions. A selection of applicants to choose for
the job is often improved iteratively until the fulfillment of a
terminating condition. The change may be viewed as
identifying a way to arrive specifically at the global maximum
rather than arbitrarily seek to achieve it. The mechanism of an
evolutionary algorithm offers many merits and benefits such as
dilemma independence, derivation independence, and
depending on local optima [19].
In general, there are different optimization problems which
could be considered as constrained or unconstrained problems.
It is worth mentioning, that a constrained version of the present
work has been proposed by the authors [14]. In this work, the
algorithm will be validated and tested for problems of
unconstrained optimization utilizing fifteen benchmark
7th International Engineering Conference Research &Innovation amid Global Pandemic (IEC2021) Erbil, Iraq
functions and the result will be compared among some robust
and well-known algorithms. Askarzadeh [16] introduced a
BMO technique which is a nature-inspired meta-heuristic while
this technique still suffers from several drawbacks. For this
reason and to obtain more precise evaluation results it is
hybridized with DE. To test the robustness and effectively of
proposed BMO-DE; the algorithm is implemented on some
functions of benchmark and the evaluation results compared to
other algorithms [25][26].
On the surface, an estimated algorithm (like a genetic
algorithm) does not promise that the optimal solution will be
discovered, but empirically this have also been shown to
provide a nearly optimal solution within a fair period. There are
approximations that fall into two categories: intuitive
approximations and metaheuristics. There are several heuristics
accessible in the literature, but generic heuristics do not extend
to any situation, with each problem getting its own heuristics.
Heuristic algorithms may be expensive to develop and might
not be ideal for a wide range of optimization problems [21]. In
comparison, metaheuristics rely a lot more on feature
optimization while provable items are more successful in a
more precise way. A high-level learning framework enables the
creation of a higher-level conceptual model and adapts its
design for each cycle to better perform the current mission.
Examples of these algorithms include simulated annealing,
great deluge [21], tabu search [22], genetic algorithm (GA),
[23], harmony search, scatter search, ant colony optimization
and particle swarm optimization [24][27].
The BMO-DE is motivated by the breeding tactics of male birds
that feel it more advantageous to remain with one female to help
incubate a new offspring than to find new partners. The strength
of the BMO-DE lies in its ability to have a strong compromise
between discovery and extraction, i.e., the high exploration
areas and low exploration areas. The BMO-DE overcomes the
downside of lacking demographic diversity and being stuck in
local optima that is inherent in other methodologies by using
five updating techniques to travel across the quest space.
II. BIRD MATING OPTIMIZER
Bird Mating Optimizer (BMO) is a technique which is
based on the population algorithms. The population in the BMO
algorithm is suggested to society and for a specific problem
each society member can be considered as a feasible solution
and is named a bird. Usually, genes in high quality are possess
by females which can be divided into different sets, namely,
promiscuous, monogamy, and polygyny [16].
In monogamy types, to select one female for mating, the
quality of females will be assessed by each individual male by
using a probabilistic approach. The females who possess genes
in high quality have more chances to be chosen.
Computationally manner, suppose x is a monogamous bird
x , the following
which wants to make mating with a female
Equations give the brood resultant [16].
xb = x + w * r * ( xi − x ) .
(1)
55
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA. Downloaded on July 14,2021 at 14:45:18 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
And when r1  mcf
xb (c) = l (c) − r2 *(l (c) − u (c)).
(2)
A random number is represented by c between 1 and 𝑛, the
brood resultant indicated by 𝑥𝑏, the weight of time-varying to
determine the significance of female that is interested by is
represented by w . Where r is equal to vector of 1 d whose
each of their element randomly constructed in the rage of [1, 0]
influences the elements of the ( xi − x), n represents the
dimension of problem. The factor of control mutation which
varies between 0 and 1 is indicated by mcf , random numbers
are indicated by ri which are between 0 and 1 also. Finally, the
upper bounds of the element are represented by
u, while the
lower one is represented by l [14].
Polygyny types which indicate that mating between one
male of the bird with two females or several females. The major
feature of extra-pair intercourse is to obtain preferable genes for
brood. For more simplicity in the BMO technique, one brood
only could be the outcome from the mating from genes which
are a group of genes of females. The brood resultant can be
performed using “(3)”. [16], [14].
ni
xb = x + w *  rj * ( x j − x ) .
(3)
j =1
While when r1  mcf ( after that “(2)” is utilized). If ni
indicates the number of birds that are interested, as well as xj
represents the jth interesting bird. It is worth mentioning,
that the same computational equation of monogamous is
implemented to the promiscuous types.
In parthenogenesis types, each female is raising the brood
without getting help form the male. In this species, and by the
way of modifying in probabilistically of her genes, females try
to pass-through on preferable genes to her brood. The outcome
of each bird of a brood based on the “(4)” and “(5)”: if r > 1
mcfp .
xb (i) = x(i) +  *(r2 − r3 )* x(i).
(4)
Else
xb (i) = x(i).
(5)
If
 is the size step and mcfp indicates the factor of
control for parthenogenetic mutation. In the BMO technique, a
similar computational equation of polygyny is implemented to
the polyandry types.
7th International Engineering Conference Research &Innovation amid Global Pandemic (IEC2021) Erbil, Iraq
III. DIFFERENTIAL EVOLUTION (DE)
Differential Evolution (DE) technique is a stochastic
approach which is depended on the population which is
presented by Storn and Price [17]. This approach represents the
design of vectors or parameters in a d-dimensional via search
space. Preserving candidate solutions of a population is the first
step of the optimization process starts in DE. Then, based on
the combining of existing candidate solutions a new one could
be generated depending on its objective function. The final step
is preserving the candidate solution which has an optimal value
of fitness at hand [20].
Dealing with a mutation in DE could be based on randomly
selecting various population vectors for two different vectors,
after that, utilized for the disorder the presenting vector.
Further, such disorder is implemented in each population
vector, thus, it is considered as a very effective approach.
Moreover, it could be mentioned that the process of crossover
in the DE approach is a vector-based also. Here, in the case of
having d vectors in the d-dimensional of search space as well
as generation of first random of n solution vectors, then
selecting xi if i = 1, 2,3,..., n for each solution xi
generation t , based on that, the conventional notation can be
chosen as the following ” (6)” .
xit = ( x1,t i , x2,t i ,..., xdt ,i ),
The DE approach consists of some major processes which
are mutation process, crossover process, and selection process.
A. Mutation
In this step, three featured vectors are selected randomly
xp, xqand xr at t for each vector xi at any producing t , to
produce a vector which is named as the donor vector the
following “ (7)” could be used [4].
vit +1 = xtp + F ( xqt − xrt ),
Where F indicates weight factor of real differential and
 [0, 2] , the which is named a donor vector vi is produced
from the perturbation process F ( xq − xr ) to the vector xp ,
and the size of population n must be equal or more than number
four.
B. Crossover
The probability of crossover cr  [0,1] can control the
procedure of crossover. The procedure of crossover is executed
through two methods: binomial and exponential. This
procedure is implemented though the scheme of binomial on
each of the d components by r [0;1] which represents a
i several manners. Thus, a particular notation was utilized to
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA. Downloaded on July 14,2021 at 14:45:18 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
random number. Thus, the jth component of vi is modified
as shown in “(8)” [4]:
u tj+,i1 = v j ,i if ri  Cr .
(8)
While no changes will be happening on it, randomly this
technique can determine whether any exchanges could happen
between each component and donor vector.
C. Selection
The process of selection is related to the fittest genes
selection in the DE technique as well as in the Genetic
Algorithm (GA). Literature focuses on Cr , F and n selection
also amending of “(7)”. Generally, different methods of “(7)”
formulation can be utilized to provide vectors of mutation, this
helps in leading to various algorithms with the calling of the
at any convention. Where the scheme of mutation indicated by x , the
y
number of the variation vector is represented by , and z is
considered as a scheme of crossover (exponential or binomial).
“(7)” presents the basic of DE/Rand/1/Bin methods [4], [20].
IV. PROPOSED METHOD
(6)
This study introduced a new hybrid technique based on
meta-heuristic algorithms. The proposed study exploits the
original methods of Bird Mating Optimizer (BMO) and
Differential Evolution (DE) techniques to propose a new
method. A hybrid method between BMO and DE has been
presented to outcome Unconstrained optimization problems.
BMO suffers from many drawbacks like other meta-
heuristic algorithms, such as the convergence speed, trapping
into local optima and the poor solution quality. Therefore, and
to overcome these insufficiencies, BMO is hybridized with DE
in this paper. Basically, to maintain a preferable balance
between both searches local and global, as intense global search
has utilized the DE technique in this study. Thus, the proposed
method does not be trapped in local optimum. The optimization
(7) process of the proposed BMO-DE starts by initializing
parameter settings and population size, then the maximum
number of generations, polygynous, percentage of
monogamous, polyandrous birds, and promiscuous will be
initialized, after that, the objective (fitness) function will be
calculated, and the birds will be sorted out based on the value
of their objective function. Different birds, namely,
polyandrous, Monogamous, and polygynous will be
determined, then based on chaotic sequence, all species will be
generated and the worst one will be deleted. Then the role of
the DE approach will appear as intensive global search to select
elite birds.
In the technical meaning, in the DE technique, both
crossover and mutation processes can be implemented in
describe the variety of these strategies or approaches. For
instance, “DE/rand/1/bin" indicates that the major vector is
56
7th International Engineering Conference Research &Innovation amid Global Pandemic (IEC2021) Erbil, Iraq
chosen randomly, where the difference of one vector could be
added to it. The number of amended parameters in the vector of
the mutation process follows the binomial allocation. Finally,
the objective function will be updated, and if the termination
criteria are met, then the optimization process will be
terminated. Fig. 1 shows the pseudo code of the proposed
method utilizing the DE/ Rand/ 1/ Bin scheme.
1: Set and initialize the size of the society (population size)
2: Initialize maximum no. of generations, percentage of monogamous,
polygynous, promiscuous, and polyandrous birds and other algorithm
parameters.
3: Do
4: Calculate the objective function
5: Sort the birds according to their objective function value
6: Determine monogamous, polygynous, and polyandrous birds
7: Based on chaotic sequence, generate promiscuous birds and delete the
worst birds
8: Calculate the objective function for the promiscuous birds
9: For i=1 to maximum no. of promiscuous birds
10: Select and choose the elite bird using DE/ Rand/ 1/ Bin scheme
11: The brood is produced based on equations 1 and 2
12: Next i
13: For i=1 to maximum no. of polygynous birds
14: Select and choose the elite bird using DE/ Rand/ 1/ Bin scheme
15: The brood is produced based on equations 3 and 4
16: Next i
17: For i=1 to maximum no. of polygynous birds
18: Select and choose the elite bird using DE/ Rand/ 1/ Bin scheme
19: The brood is produced based on equations 3 and 4
20: Next i
21: For i=1 to maximum no. of promiscuous birds
22: Select and choose the elite bird using DE/ Rand/ 1/ Bin scheme
23: The brood is produced based on equations 1 and 2
20: Next i
21: For i=1 to maximum no. of parthenogenetic birds
22: The brood is produced based on equations 5 and 6
23: Next i
24: Calculate the objective function
25: Perform the replacement and update the parameters until the
termination criteria is met
Fig. 1. pseudo code of the proposed BMO-DE algorithm
V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULT AND DISCUSSION
In this study, the experimental evaluation is performed in
MATLAB R2020a, and carried out on a LENOVO Laptop with
the configuration of Intel® Core™ i7-8550U CPU @ 2.00 GHz
with 8.00 GB RAM on Windows 10 of used operating system.
A. BMO-DE Parameter Settings
In metaheuristic algorithms, the set of parameters must be
tuned carefully as it affects the performance evaluation of the
method. Wherefore, it is better that the parameter settings of the
proposed BMO-DE will be studied more soon. The parameter
settings in this work are as the following:
The size of both population and the society has placed to
200. The initialization of whole birds has been done in a random
way via the search space. The number of both polyandrous as
well as parthenogenetic is set at 10, the number of promiscuous
has set at 20, the number of polygynous has set at 60, and 100
has been set as the number of monogamous birds. Further, the
ratio of each type from the population has been selected
57
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA. Downloaded on July 14,2021 at 14:45:18 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
carefully depending on the achieved ideal evaluation results. To
be adequate, the number of elite mates who are interested in for
birds polyandrous as well as polygynous is set to three. Among
10 of monogamous birds, the interested monogamous birds
have been chosen with genes which are most promised to
depend on the original method of BMO. The value of mcf
which indicates the factor of the control of mutation is set to 0.9
whereas the
 which represents the step size is set to 0.001.
The entire process may be affected by the not tunning the mcf
parameter carefully which leads to have a bad impact on the
evaluation performance. The time-varying weight factor
indicated by w is set between the range of 2.5 to 0.25, the
factor of parthenogenetic mutation control is represented by
mcfp is set between the rage of 0.1 to 0.9. These values are
set to present a good balance between both searches global and
local. Hence, 100 is set as the maximum number of generations.
For DE, the following parameters are employed: the mutation
strategies: \DE/rand/1", the factor of differential amplification
F = 0.52, constant probability of crossover CR = 0.91.
B. Stopping Criteria in BMO-DE
The number of iterations for prediction is nearly considered
as a standard termination procedure in whole techniques of
swarm intelligence. Thus, the optimal solution may be missed
by the specific algorithm. In this study, the largest number of
iterations placed as 100 iterations for the termination procedure
and with a given error rate (tolerance) of 0.00001. This to
ensure that one of the previous stop conditions will discover the
optimal solution.
C. Functions of Benchmark
The performance evaluation of the proposed hybrid BMO-
DE method has been assessed based on employing 15 standard
functions of the benchmark with different properties, this
evaluation has been done from various perspectives.
Benchmark functions could be classified into different three
sets: unimodal results as shown in Table I, the result of
multimodal as shown in Table II, and finally the results of
composite functions as shown in Table III. As their names
imply, the functions of the unimodal test consist of only one
optimal solution. In the other side, multi-modal test functions
usually consist of two or more optimum, so, it is more tough
than unimodal functions. The optimum points in multimodal
functions are called local optima except the main one which is
called global optima. A robust algorithm shall not be trapped in
any of these local optima points to method and reach the global
optimum. Thus, discovering, and local optimal avert of
technique can be evaluated based on the functions of test of the
multi-modal.
It is worth mentioning, all test functions of both unimodal
functions and multi-modal functions are equivalent to 0 as
minimally. The last fourth functions used for testing are
composite functions that are combined extremely, shifted,
rotated, and biased version of unimodal test functions and
multi-modal test functions [18]. These functions simulate the
real spaces of search by supplying a huge number of local
optimum and various shapes of the space of search. A good
method should have an excellent balance between
7th International Engineering Conference Research &Innovation amid Global Pandemic (IEC2021) Erbil, Iraq

diversification and intensification to reach the global optima of 𝑓11(𝑥) 30, 200 [-50, 50] 0
such functions of test. = 0.1 {𝑠𝑖𝑛2 (3𝜋𝑥1 )
𝑛
TABLE I. UNIMODAL BENCHMARK FUNCTIONS. +∑ (𝑥𝑖
𝑖=1
2 [1
Functions Dims Range Fmin − 1) + 𝑠𝑖𝑛2 (3𝜋𝑥1 + 1)] + (𝑥𝑛
𝑛
30, 200 [-100, 100] 0 − 1) 1 + 𝑠𝑖𝑛2 (2𝜋𝑥𝑛 )]
2

𝑓1(𝑥) = ∑ 𝑥𝑖2
𝑖=1
𝑛 𝑛
30, 200 [-10, 10] 0 TABLE III. BENCHMARK FUNCTIONS COMPOSITE
𝑓2(𝑥) = ∑ 𝑥𝑖2 |𝑥𝑖 | ∏ |𝑥𝑖 |
𝑖=1 𝑖=1/2
𝑖 30, 200 [-100, 100] 0 Functions Dims Range Fmin
𝑛
𝑓3(𝑥) = ∑ 𝑥𝑖2 (∑ 𝑥𝑗 ) 𝑓12(𝑥) = ∑11
𝑥1 (𝑏𝑖2 +𝑏𝑥2 )
] 4 [-5, 5] 0.0003
𝑖=1 𝑖=1[𝑎𝑖 −
𝑏𝑖2 +𝑏𝑥3 +𝑥4
𝑗−1
𝑓4(𝑥) = max 𝑖 {|𝑥𝑖 |, 1 ≤ 1 ≤ 𝑛} 30, 200 [-100, 100] 0
1 2 [-5, 5] -1.031
𝑓13(𝑥) = 4𝑥12 − 2.1𝑥14 + 𝑥16 + 𝑥1 𝑥2
3
𝑛−1
30, 200 [-30, 30] 0 + 4𝑥22 + 4𝑥24
𝑓5(𝑥) = ∑ [100(𝑥𝑖+1 − 𝑥𝑖2
𝑖=1
5.1 5
𝑓12(𝑥) =(𝑥2 − 2 𝑥12 + 𝑥1 − 6)2 + 2 [-5, 5] 0.398
4𝜋 𝜋
+ (𝑥𝑖 − 1)2 ] 1
𝑛
30, 200 [-100, 100] 0 10 (1 − ) 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑥1 + 10
8𝜋
𝑓6(𝑥) = ∑ ([𝑥𝑖 + 0.5)2 ]
𝑖=1 𝑓12(𝑥) =[1+(𝑥1 + 𝑥2 + 1)2 (19 − 2 [-2, 2] 3
𝑛
30, 200 [-128, 128] 0 14𝑥1 + 3𝑥12 − 14𝑥2 + 6𝑥1 𝑥2 + 3𝑥22 )] ∗
𝑓7(𝑥) = ∑ 𝑖𝑥𝑖4 + 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑚[0,1) [30 + 2𝑥1 − 3𝑥2 )2 ∗ (18 − 32𝑥1 +
𝑖=1
12𝑥12 + 48𝑥2 − 36𝑥1 𝑥2 + 27𝑥22 )]
TABLE II. MULTIMODAL BENCHMARK FUNCTIONS.
Functions Dims Range Fmin
To verify and validate the BMO-DE results, three well-
known and robust techniques are employed: the preferable
𝑛
30, 200 [-5.12, 0
𝑓8(𝑥) = ∑ [𝑥𝑖2 − 10 cos(2𝜋𝑥𝑖 )
5.12]
evolutionary technique is a GA while PSO from swarm
intelligence techniques is considered as the ideal one.
𝑖=1
+ 10]
𝑛 30, 200 [-32, 32] 0 Additionally, the BMO-DE technique is compared with one of
1
𝑓9(𝑥) = −20exp⁡(−0.2√ ∑ 𝑥𝑖2 ) the modern and robust techniques which is Bat Algorithm (BA)
𝑛
𝑖=1 [19] Table IV, Table V, and Table VI.
𝑓10(𝑥) 30, 200 [-600, 600] 0
To obtain the performance of quantitative evaluation
1
𝑛
𝑛 𝑥𝑖
results, each of the used technique has been performed on the
=
4000
∑ 𝑥𝑖2 − ∏ cos⁡( ) functions of test 30 times independently. The average of the
𝑖=1 √𝑖
𝑖=1 minimum objective values is denoted by (AVE) and standard
+1
deviation (STD) of the best ideal solution until stopping criteria
are met is reported. The two criteria strategies indicate which
technique act as more stable technique during solving the test
functions.

TABLE IV. RESULTS OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF UNIMODAL BENCHMARK FUNCTIONS (30-DIMENSIONAL)

GA PSO BA BMO-DE
F
AVE STD AVE STD AVE STD AVE STD
F1 0.118842 0.125606 2.70E_09 1.00E_09 0.773622 0.528134 2.68E_11 1.89E_10

F2 0.145224 0.053227 7.15E_05 2.26E_05 0.334583 3.816022 1.98E_05 5.37E_06

F3 0.13902 0.121161 4.71E_06 1.49E_06 0.115303 0.766036 5.07E_7 5.84E_8

F4 0.157951 0.862029 3.25E_07 1.02E_08 0.192185 0.890266 1.44E_07 1.92E_09

F5 0.714157 0.972711 0.123401 0.216251 0.334077 0.300037 0.356883 0.132446

F6 0.167918 0.868638 5.23E_07 2.74E_06 0.778849 0.67392 2.78E_8 1.11E_9
F7 0.010073 0.003263 0.001398 0.001269 0.137483 0.112671 0.003485 0.004143

58

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA. Downloaded on July 14,2021 at 14:45:18 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
7th International Engineering Conference Research &Innovation amid Global Pandemic (IEC2021) Erbil, Iraq

TABLE V. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESULTS OF MULTIMODAL BENCHMARK FUNCTIONS (30-DIMENSIONAL)

GA PSO BA BMO-DE
F
AVE STD AVE STD AVE STD AVE STD

F8 0.659271 0.815751 0.278588 0.218991 1.233748 0.686447 8.86365E_04 8.65E_05

F9 0.956111 0.807701 1.11E_09 2.39E_11 0.129359 0.043251 4.83437E_11 1.45E_12

F10 0.487809 0.217782 0.273674 0.204348 1.451575 0.570309 0.027515 0.008993

F11 0.110769 0.002152 9.42E_09 2.31E_10 0.395977 0.993325 0.012654 9.47E_11

TABLE VI. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESULTS OF COMPOSITE BENCHMARK FUNCTIONS

GA PSO BA BMO-DE
F
AVE STD AVE STD AVE STD AVE STD

F12 114.6139 26.96248 120 131.6561 182.476 117.0248 0.891365 0.991354

F13 95.46331 7.163383 162.9144 119.2351 487.2021 161.4107 58.134262 30.392763

F14 325.4427 51.66827 363.2361 151.3109 588.1938 137.7861 201.253146 76.301020

F15 466.3074 29.56841 450.0688 157.8496 756.9757 160.097 310.014151 11.030561

Based on the obtained evaluation results of the proposed
BMO-DE method using various benchmark test functions
presented in Table I, Table II, and Table III. Further, comparing
obtained results with some well-known and robust optimization
techniques presented in Table IV, Table V, and Table VI. It was
noticed that the present work outperforms other studies from
state-of-the-art almost in all test functions. DE technique is the
main reason behind achieving the ideal results of the proposed
method. The DE technique possesses the exploitation or
intensification property, which uses the data and information of
the existing solutions based on focusing on a local scale for
searching. Moreover, another important property can be found
in the DE technique, which is exploration or diversification,
depending on that the DE technique can produce diverse or
different solutions for exploring search space at the global level.
Based on that, the proposed BMO-DE obtained the global
optimality since a good balance and incorporation which are
provided between diversification and intensification.
as the largest number of iterations (generations) in the first
stage. Further, computing the objective function as well as
sorting out whole birds depended on the value of their objective
function utilizing the BMO technique. After that, based on
utilizing DE technique the best group of elite birds will be
chosen. In the experimental evaluation, various benchmark test
functions have been utilized which are unimodal, multimodal,
and composite functions. This step has been done to ensure the
robustness and efficacy of the proposed technique. After that,
this study presents a comparison between proposed technique
with several literature techniques in term of both STD and
average of the best optimal solution until stopping criteria are
met. The experimental evaluation results depicted that the
proposed BMO-DE method is approximately reliable and
effective in finding a global optimal solution accurately.
Eventually, it can be acknowledged that the proposed hybrid
BMO-DE technique is a promise and efficient contribution to
overcoming these types of optimization problems.

VI. CONCLUSION REFERENCES

This study presents a new hybrid meta-heuristic method
named the BMO-DE technique. Based on the proposed
technique could overcome global optimization problems as
well as more specifically unconstrained ones. Initialization is
considered as a first step of the optimization process for the
proposed technique. Population size has been initialized as well
[1] Y. XS (2010) Nature-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithms, vol 2.
Nature-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithms, vol 2, Second Edition
edn. Luniver Press, United Kingdom
[2] D. Q. Zeebaree, A. M. Abdulazeez, D. A. Zebari, H. Haron, and N.
A. Haza, "Multi-Level Fusion in Ultrasound for Cancer Detection
Based on Uniform LBP Features". Computers,Materials &
Continua, Vol.66, No.3, pp. 3363- 3382, 202.

[3] A.S. Eesa, Z. Orman, & A.M. Brifcani, (2015). A novel feature-
selection approach based on the cuttlefish optimization algorithm
for intrusion detection systems. Expert Syst. Appl., 42, 2670-2679.
[4] D. Q. Zeebaree, H. Haron, A. M. Abdulazeez, and S. R. Zeebaree,
‘Combination of K-means clustering with Genetic Algorithm: A

59

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA. Downloaded on July 14,2021 at 14:45:18 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
7th International Engineering Conference Research &Innovation amid Global Pandemic (IEC2021) Erbil, Iraq
review’, Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res., vol. 12, no. 24, pp. 14238–14245,
2017.
[5] H. Sadeeq,“A Modified Flower Pollination Algorithm for
Engineering Design Optimization Problems”. Polytechnic Journal.
Vol 7, No 1. (2017).
[6] D. Q. Zeebaree, H. Haron, A. M. Abdulazeez, and D. A. Zebari,
"Trainable Model Based on New Uniform LBP Feature to Identify
the Risk of the Breast Cancer," in 2019 International Conference on
Advanced Science and Engineering (ICOASE), 2019: IEEE, pp.
106-111.
[7] R. Zebari, A. Abdulazeez, D. Zeebaree, D. Zebari, and J. Saeed, "A
Comprehensive Review of Dimensionality Reduction Techniques
for Feature Selection and Feature Extraction," Journal of Applied
Science and Technology Trends, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 56-70, 2020.
[8] H. Sadeeq and A. M. Abdulazeez, "Hardware Implementation of
Firefly Optimization Algorithm Using FPGAs," 2018 International
Conference on Advanced Science and Engineering (ICOASE),
Duhok, 2018, pp. 30-35, doi: 10.1109/ICOASE.2018.8548822.
[9] D.A. Zebari, D.Q. Zeebaree, J.N. Saeed, N.A. Zebari, N& A.Z.
Adel,. (2020). Image steganography based on swarm intelligence
algorithms: A survey. people, 7(8), 9.
[10] A.A. Heidari, et al. “Harris Hawks Optimization: Algorithm and
Applications.” Future Generation Computer Systems, Elsevier BV,
Feb. 2019, doi:10.1016/j.future.2019.02.028.
[11] S.M. Mirjalili, et al. “Salp Swarm Algorithm: A bio-inspired
optimizer for engineering design problems.” Adv. Eng. Softw. 114
(2017): 163-191.
[12] D. Q. Zeebaree, H. Haron, A. M. Abdulazeez, and D. A. Zebari,
"Machine learning and Region Growing for Breast Cancer
Segmentation," in 2019 International Conference on Advanced
Science and Engineering (ICOASE), 2019: IEEE, pp. 88-93.
[13] V. Hayyolalam, A. Asghar Pourhaji Kazem, “Black Widow
Optimization Algorithm: A novel meta-heuristic approach for
solving engineering optimization problems”. Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence. 87 (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.103249.
[14] H. Sadeeq ., A. Abdulazeez ., N. Kako , A. Abrahim (2018) A Novel
Hybrid Bird Mating Optimizer with Differential Evolution for
Engineering Design Optimization Problems. In: Saeed F., Gazem
N., Patnaik S., Saed Balaid A., Mohammed F. (eds) Recent Trends
in Information and Communication Technology. IRICT 2017.
Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications
Technologies, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-59427-9_55
[15] D. Q. Zeebaree, H. Haron and A. M. Abdulazeez, "Gene Selection
and Classification of Microarray Data Using Convolutional Neural
Network," 2018 International Conference on Advanced Science and
60
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA. Downloaded on July 14,2021 at 14:45:18 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
View publication stats
Engineering (ICOASE), Duhok, 2018, pp. 145-150, doi:
10.1109/ICOASE.2018.8548836.
[16] A. Askarzadeh (2014) Bird mating optimizer: An optimization
algorithm inspired by bird mating strategies. Communications in
Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation 19 (4):1213-1228.
doi: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2013.08.027
[17] R. Storn KP (1997) Differential Evolution – A Simple and Efficient
Heuristic for global Optimization over Continuous Spaces. Journal
of Global Optimization 11 (4):341–359.
doi:10.1023/A:1008202821328
[18] J. Liang, B. Qu, & P.N. Suganthan, (2014). Problem Definitions
and Evaluation Criteria for the CEC 2014 Special Session and
Competition on Single Objective Real-Parameter Numerical
Optimization.
[19] S. Mirjalili, The ant lion optimizer, Adv. Eng. Software, 83 (2015)
80-98.
[20] Qin, A. K., Huang, V. L., & Suganthan, P. N. (2008). Differential
evolution algorithm with strategy adaptation for global numerical
optimization. IEEE transactions on Evolutionary
Computation, 13(2), 398-417.
[21] M.K. Dhadwal, S.N. Jung, C.J. Kim, Advanced particle
swarm assisted genetic algorithm for constrained optimization
problems, Comput. Optim. Appl. 58 (2014) 781–806.
[22] E. Taha Yassen, M. Ayob, M.Z. Ahmad Nazri, N.R. Sabar,
Metaharmony search algorithm for the vehicle routing problem with
time windows, Inf. Sci. (Ny). 325 (2015) 140–158.
[23] K. Deb, N. Padhye, Enhancing performance of particle swarm
optimization through an algorithmic link with genetic algorithms,
Comput. Optim. Appl. 57 (2014) 761–794.
[24] A. Arram, M. Ayob, G. Kendall, & A. Sulaiman, (2020). Bird
mating optimizer for combinatorial optimization problems. IEEE
Access, 8, 96845-96858.
[25] M. Younis, S.Y. Ameen, S.B. Sadkhan, “evaluation of using genetic
algorithm in cryptoanalysis”, Journal of University of Babylon,
2006, 12 (5), 982-989.
[26] S.B. Sadkhan, “A Proposed Genetic Based Method to Solve
Frequency Assignment Problem for HF Band”, 2019 4th Scientific
International Conference Najaf (SICN), 48-53.
[27] S.B. Sadkhan, F.H. Abdulraheem, “A proposed ANFIS Evaluator for
RSA Cryptosystem used in Cloud Networking”, 2017 International
Conference on Current Research in Computer Science and
Information Technology (ICCIT)..