Imitation Based Cognitive Learning Optimizer

Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template
Imitation-based Cognitive Learning Optimizer for solving

numerical and engineering optimization problems
Sobia Tariq Javed1*, Kashif Zafar1† and Irfan Younas1†
1 FAST School of Computing, National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences,
Lahore, Pakistan, 852-B Milaad St,Block B Faisal Town, Lahore, 54770, Punjab, Pakistan.
*Corresponding author(s). E-mail(s): sobia.tariq@nu.edu.pk;

Contributing authors: kashif.zafar@nu.edu.pk; irfan.younas@nu.edu.pk;
† These authors contributed equally to this work.
Abstract
A novel human cognitive and social interaction-based metaheuristic called Imitation-based Cog-
nitive Learning Optimizer (CLO) is proposed in this paper. It is inspired by the imitation
and social learning behavior of humans during the life cycle. The human life cycle consists of
various stages. In a societal setup, humans are organized into families. They interact within and
outside the family to accomplish their needs. This interaction plays a vital role in the learning
process. People tend to mimic the behavior of others. Imitating human behavior during the life
cycle is incorporated into this algorithm to improve cognitive abilities. Three real-world mechani-
cal engineering optimization problems (Welded beam problem, Tension-Compression String Design
Problem, and Speed reducer problem) and 100 challenging benchmark functions including uni-
modal, multi-modal and CEC-BC-2017 functions are used for the real-time validation. It is compared
with 12 state-of-art algorithms from the literature. The experiments and Friedman’s Mean Rank
(FMR) statistical test demonstrate the superiority of CLO over the other chosen algorithms.
Keywords: Optimization, Socio-inspired algorithm, Metaheuristics, Imitation based algorithm, Cognitive

Learning
1 Introduction diverse nature of each optimization problem. A

good metaheuristic must be able to maintain a
The traditional deterministic methods are unable balance between exploration (diversification) and
to solve the complicated constrained optimiza- exploitation (intensification) [1].
tion problems having multiple local optima. The main contributions of this paper are as follow:
These methods fail due to their time-consuming, • A novel human-based metaheuristic called
non-random, and non-probabilistic nature. The Imitation-based Cognitive Learning Opti-
researchers came up with nature-inspired meta- mizer (CLO) is proposed which is based on
heuristic algorithms as an ideal alternative. Meta- human cognitive and social learning through
heuristics based on the behavior of living species different human life stages. During this span,
from nature have shown marvelous performance. humans play various roles in a societal setup.
No single metaheuristic is best and can solve As they live in colonies, so they interact and
all optimization problems due to the unique and mimic the behavior of each other to form a
1
better aristocratic society. The cognitive abil- 2 Literature Review

ities are improved through these interactions.
To the best of our knowledge, the concept This section gives a brief overview of metaheuris-
of social learning behavior of humans during tics algorithms available in the literature. Meta-
their lifespan has not been mathematically heuristics are widely used for global optimization
explored and mapped to solve optimization [2] due to their well-balanced exploration and
problems. exploitation mechanism and problem-independent
• CLO is validated using five sets of benchmark nature. They are natural-phenomena-inspired
functions and two real-world mechanical algorithms that are classified into the following
engineering optimization problems. Five sets four categories.
of benchmark functions consist of 100 func- • Evolution based metaheuristic algorithms
tions which include uni-modal fixed dimen- • Swarm based metaheuristic algorithms
sion, uni-modal variable dimension, multi- • Physics based metaheuristic algorithms
modal fixed dimension, multi-modal variable • Human behavior based metaheuristic algo-
dimension, and CEC-BC-2017 functions. To rithms.
further authenticate CLO’s methods, it is Evolution based metaheuristic algorithms
compared with 12 algorithms from the lit- (EA) are a population based algorithm that imi-
erature. The experimental results and FMR tate the process of evolution in nature. New off
statistical test demonstrate that the pro- springs are generated using the biological opera-
posed CLO significantly outperforms other tors like reproduction, mutation, recombination,
algorithms. and selection [3–9]. Swarm based metaheuris-
• CLO proposed the method of maintaining the tic algorithms are inspired by the collective
balance between exploration and exploita- intelligent and social behavior of different species.
tion. The equations are carefully designed [10–19]. Physics based metaheuristic algo-
to have more exploration at the start of rithms are inspired by the physical phenomena
the algorithm. Once the promising area is and the laws behind the natural processes [20–25]
found, it will automatically shift towards the Human behavior based metaheuristic algo-
exploitation process. rithms are inspired by the intelligent behavior of
• CLO has led a foundation for the exploration human beings.
of human social life and imitation-based As this research is related to human behavior and
learning. cognitive learning so we will be focusing on Human
Imitation is the process of copying the behavior behavior based metaheuristic algorithms.
of someone as a model. People tend to mimic the
behavior, style, and appearance of other people in 2.1 Human behavior based
society. This imitation can be partial or complete
depending on the influencing factors and the level
metaheuristic algorithms
of interaction. Human imitating behavior under Humans are the smartest and most intelligent of
proper guidance can result in learning from the all the creations due to their intellectual reason-
experience of others which improves the overall ing and thought-provoking ability. Since humans
cognitive ability. It helps in polishing the situation are the highest form of creation so the algorithms
handling and problem-solving capability. based on them will be superior to all the other
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 gives biological/animal-based algorithms. Humans can
the Literature review. The proposed methodol- efficiently and effectively solve more complex
ogy and experimental details are discussed in problems by using their intellectual and cognitive
Section 3 and Section 4 respectively. The obtained skills. They are social creatures that live together
simulation results of five benchmark functions and interact with the people in their surround-
with comparative analysis are given in Section 5. ings to solve problems. This interaction helps in
The details of mechanical engineering problems polishing their cognitive and problem-solving abil-
are given in Section 6. Finally, the conclusion is ities. Social and cultural evolution plays a vital
presented in Section 7. role in accelerating the process of human evolu-
tion as compared to biological evolution alone.
The human learning process is comparable to This mixing of different family values cultivates
the search process of metaheuristics. Like meta- new values. Elders of the family are always there to
heuristics, they learn gradually depending upon rectify the adopted bad values. Self-learning abil-
their ability and the frequency of reinforcements. ity is also inculcated in all human beings from day
They evaluate their performance to channel/guide one and this ability increases with consciousness.
their future learning process. It will not be wrong Professional life, expert guidance, and religious
to conclude that human-based metaheuristics and spiritual mentorship help in improving the
will have superiority over biological/animal-based overall moral and ethical values. In adulthood, a
algorithms. Human behavior-based metaheuristic person has the maximum experience and knowl-
algorithms can be classified into four categories as edge. As a person moves from adulthood to old
shown in Figure 1. age his/her abilities begin to deteriorate, result-
Social interaction-based algorithms (SA) ing in slow learning and a decrease in interaction
are the focus of researchers for quite a long time span [56, 57].
due to promising results. These algorithms are According to Erickson [58–62] the human life cycle
inspired by the social behavior of humans in soci- can be broadly classified into 8 major stages
ety. Their interaction with each other triggers • New Born
the learning process. People adopt the new trait- • Infant
s/behaviors of others The literature review for • Toddler
Social interaction-based algorithms is summarized • Childhood
in Table 1. • Adolescence
• Adulthood
3 Imitation-based Cognitive • Middle Adulthood
• Old Age
Learning Optimizer (CLO) Based on their learning pattern the stages can be
In this section, we discuss the inspiration and the grouped together as shown in Table 2.
mathematical model behind the Cognitive Learn-
ing Optimizer (CLO) algorithm. The research is 3.2 Mathematical model and
mainly focused on Imitation learning and Human algorithm
behavior-based metaheuristic algorithms specifi-
cally social interaction-based learning. Consider a generalized unconstrained and min-
imization problem having nVar number of
3.1 Inspiration variables as follows:
CLO is based on the learning behavior of humans Minimize

during their lifespans. In human society, people Fobj (x) = F (x1 , x2 , x3 , · · · , xnV ar )
are organized in families where they interact with Subject to: lown ≤ xn ≤ uppern
each other as well as the external world as shown Where Fobj is the objective function to be opti-
in Figure 2. This interaction helps in the learn- mized. Each variable is bounded between lown and
ing process. Human life starts with birth and goes uppern . The process of clipping is applied when-
through different stages of life till death as shown ever a variable goes out of bound which brings it
in Figure 3. During these stages, they come across back to the nearest boundary i.e., if xn is less than
different relations. Interaction and the association lown the process of clipping will bring it back to
level in these relationships shape their learning lown and if it is greater than uppern then it will
process. A child’s first interaction is with par- set it to uppern . The flowchart of the CLO is given
ents followed by the interaction with siblings. The in the Figure 4
child tends to follow his/her family values more
at an early age as he/she is more under his/her
3.2.1 Initialization
family’s influence. This influence decreases as the
child makes friends. The child then follows his/her In a society, a group of people interacts and
friend’s values and mimics his/her behavior. This imparts influence on each other. Different families
mimicking behavior increases as age advances. live in close vicinity. A family consists of a father
Algorithm Inspiration Year
Teaching Learning-Based Optimization (TLBO) [26] Influence of teachers on learners. 2011

An elitist Teaching-Learning-Based Optimization Algorithm [27] Concept of elitism. 2012
Social-Based Algorithm (SBA) [28] The traits of people in community development. 2013
A Simple Human Learning Optimization Algorithm (HLO) [29] The learning mechanism of human being. 2014
TLBO with learning experience of others (LETLBO) [30] TLBO and the learning from the experiences. 2015
Social Learning Optimization (SLO) [31] The process of human genetic and cultural evolution 2016
in the society.
Social Group Optimization (SGO) [32] Behavioral traits of a person. 2016
Human behavior-based optimization [33] Behavior of human for acquiring success. 2017
Teaching Learning Based optimization with Improvement chance of both the teacher and student 2017
Focused Learning (TLBO-FL)[34] during learning.
A learning enthusiasm based TLBO (LebTLBO)[35] The enthusiasm level of students in learning process. 2018
Socio Evolution and Learning Optimization Algorithm The social behavior of humans organized in family units. 2018
(SELO) [36]
Bus Transportation Algorithm [37] The behavior of humans in a bus while traveling. 2019
Social Mimic Optimization Algorithm [38] Imitating behavior of an individual to copy others. 2019
Expectation Algorithm (ExA): [39] Interactive behavior of individuals of the society. 2019
Nomadic People Optimizer [40] The behavior of nomads. 2019
Find-Fix-Finish-ExploitAnalyze (F3EA) algorithm [41] Targeting process/strategy in the war. 2019
Poor and Rich Optimization [42] The struggle of rich and poor to improve their financial 2019
condition.
An adaptive inertia weight teaching-learning-based TLBO and adaptive exponential distribution inertia weight. 2020
optimization algorithm [43]
Coronavirus Herd Immunity Optimization [44] The herd immunity concept to fight against the 2020
coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19).
A new doctor and patient optimization algorithm [45] Process of patient’s treatment by a physician. 2020
A modified teaching–learning based optimization (MTLBO) [46] Learning ability of good and bad student. 2021
Corona virus optimization (CVO) [47] Transmission of virus from person to person. 2021
A Human Learning Optimization Algorithm with Link Prediction Dynamic adjustment of learning relationship among 2021
Strategy [48] individuals in HLO.
Teaching-Learning-Studying-Based Optimization (TLSBO)[49] TLBO and studying strategy. 2021
Stock exchange trading optimization algorithm [50] The behavioral pattern of investors and traders in the 2022
Stock exchange market.
Anti Coronavirus Optimization Algorithm [51] The Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) [Social distancing, 2022
quarantine and isolation] for the control of Covid-19 spread.
Differential Human Learning Optimization Algorithm [52] HLO and Differential Evolution strategy. 2022
Distance-fitness learning TLBO (DFL-TLBO)[53] TLBO and distance-fitness learning strategy. 2022
Reinforcement Learning based TLBO (RLTLBO)[54] TLBO and Reinforcement Learning Strategy. 2022
Driving Training-Based Optimization[55] Driving Learning Process. 2022
Table 1: Literature review summary of Social interaction-based algorithms (SA).
Erickson’s Stages Duration Merged Stages

New Born 1-2 months
Newborn to Infant
Infant 3 months -1 years
Toddler 1 year to 3 years
Toddler to Adolescence
Childhood 3 - 10 years
Adolescence 10 – 19 years
Adulthood 20- 39 years Start of professional life
Middle Adulthood 40-60 years
Adulthood to old age
Old Age Above 60
Table 2: Erickson’s Stages merged into four sub-stages.
Fig. 1: Human behavior based metaheuristic algorithms
and a mother. Family size varies from family to 0.25 for multi-modal functions. Another param-
family depending upon the number of kids in the eter which controls the process of exploration,
family. The population size nPop will define the Explore is set to f loor(nV ar/4) and gradually
number of members in a society that is further decreases. This parameter only allows an individ-
divided into nFamilies families. So, the society ual to change 25% of its total attributes.
has nParents adults and nKids kids. The size of
the family is randomly initialized keeping in view 3.2.2 Mathematical Modelling and
that each family has a minimum of one kid and a Update Gamma
maximum of (nKids-nFamilies) kids. The kids
adopt the attributes of their parents. So, a child The population has one global best individual
is randomly generated by the crossover process of BestSol and each family has its own local best
both their parents. For a family i (L1 , L2 , ...., LnF amilies ), where Li is the local best
Xi1 : ← f ather for family i. The basic interaction equation for
Xi2 : ← mother the individual X (x1 , x2 , ....xnV ar ) with individual
Xi3 , Xi4 , ..., XinM embers : ← siblings Y (y1 , y2 , ....ynV ar ) is given below:
The details of the initialization process [63] is (
given in Algorithm 1. X(t) + γλ∥Step∥, if fobj (X(t)) < fobj (Y (t))
newX =
The various parameters that are used in Y (t) + γλ∥Step∥, otherwise
the algorithm are initialized. Epsilon (learning (1)
parameter, Epsilon ∈ [0, 1]) and rp (the parent’s where t is the current iteration, | | computes the
follow probability, rp ∈ [0, 1]) are set to one. There absolute value. λ in Eq.1 is computed as given in
is a linear decrease in both the parameters show- Eq. 2:
ing that learning ability is maximum during the λ = 2r − 1 (2)
early stages of life and then decreases gradually.
where r is nVar dimensional random number r ∈
As the kids grow, they tend to follow their parents
[0, 1] generated from the uniform distribution and
less as compared to other kids. Percent (replace-
thus limiting λ between -1 and 1.
ment probability, P ercent ∈ [0.9, 1]) is set to 0.9.
γ [64] is given by the equation
It is the probability with which the worst indi-
vidual will be replaced by an improved one. It
gradually increases. The maximum worth (Wmax )
t mode M axIt
C

γ = 2 − (3)

M axIt

is set to 1. This parameter is similar to the max- 4C

imum learning enthusiasm (LEmax) discussed in
literature [35]. where C is a control parameter that controls the
The two controlling parameters C (Percentage of number of cycles γ will take in MaxIt iteration
exploitation required) and Exploration (Percent- and thus results in controlling the exploitation
age of exploration required, Exploration ∈ [0, 0.5] ability. Large value of C will help the individual
are initialized. Exploration =0 for uni-modal and to escape the local optima at the expense of weak
exploitation[64]. γ oscillates between 0 and 2.
Fig. 2: Semantic representation of CLO.
Step defines the pace of learning. The value of the share will be small in the begin-
The ratio of the current iteration and the max- ning and increases gradually until it reaches one
imum iteration is denoted by share as given in towards the end of the iterations.
Equation 4. In the algorithm, there are three modes of learning
• Interactional Learning
• Self-learning
t • Expert Learning
share = (4)
M axIt
Fig. 3: Stages of Human Life.
Fig. 4: Flowchart of CLO.
Based on these modes of learning, there are three people having different relations. With each inter-
different equations for Step and newX. action, there is learning. Human learns from their
elders as well as younger people of any age. If
an individual X (x1 , x2 , ....xnV ar ) interacts with
Interactional Learning
individual Y (y1 , y2 , ....ynV ar ), then their pace of
It is the learning process through interaction with
others. Humans are surrounded by a variety of
Algorithm 1 Initialization Self-learning

nP op = Initialize the population size It is a learning approach to manage learning tasks
nF amilies = Initialize number of families without external interference. Individuals make
nKids = nPop - 2*nFamilies
their own effort to identify and address their learn-
nP arents = nFamilies * 2
ing needs.
for all families do
nM embers = Initialize number of family mem- For an individual X (x1 , x2 , ....xnV ar ) self-learning
bers such that each family has minimum of one equation is given in Eq. 6
child and maximum of (nKids-nFamilies)
Step = share∗BestSol(t)+(1−share)∗X(t) (6)
end
nV ar = number of dimensions In the start, the individual will exploit his sur-
upper = upper bound
rounding area by self-learning but towards the
llow = lower bound
Wmax = 1 ▷ Maximum Worth
end, it will help to exploit the area around the best
M axIt = maximum number of iterations individual. In this case, newX will be computed
Exploration = Initialize the percentage of exploration using the Eq. 7.
required
C = Initialize
j thek percentage of exploitation required newX = X(t) + γλ Step (7)
M axIt
cycles = C
M axIt Expert Learning
itP erCycle = cycles ▷ Iteration per Cycle
qtrCycle = itP erCycle
▷ Quarter Cycle
This is the process of learning from the expert
4
P ercent = 0.9 ▷ Replacement probability of the poor in the surroundings (Local and Global best). An
individual with the improved one individual X (x1 , x2 , ....xnV ar ) of family i has Li
rp = 0.9 ▷ Parents follow probability local best and BestSol global best. His learning
(rp−0.1)
P rob change = M axIt ▷ rp decreasing factor equation is given in Eq. 8
Explore = f loor( nV4ar ) ▷ Convergence parameter
Ex change = Explore ▷ Explore decreasing factor Step = share ∗ [BestSol(t) − X(t)] + ...
M axIt
Epsilon = 1 ▷ Learning parameter (1 − share) ∗ [Li (t) − X(t)] (8)
Epsilon
Epsilon change = (M axIt+2)
▷ Epsilon decreasing
factor In the beginning, learning will be more tilted
Stage = 1 towards the local best. As the algorithm proceeds
for all members of all families do and the best solution stabilizes so then the learn-
if member is father or mother then ing is shifted towards the global best. newX is
Randomly initialize each dimension computed using the Eq. 9
keeping in view upper and lower bound
else
Create a child by crossover process from newX = BestSol(t) + γλ Step (9)
his/her father and mother. If at any point Step = 0 then it will be recom-
end puted using Expert Learning. If still Step = 0
end then Step = α where α is randomly generated
(α ∈ [0, Epsilon/2]) and is nVar dimensional i.e.,
α = (α1 , α2 , ..., αnV ar ). The value of the Epsilon
learning is given by the Equation 5:
decreases gradually from one to zero, thus there is
more exploration at the start of the algorithm as
Step = share ∗ [BestSol(t) − X(t)] + ... compared to the end.
(1 − share) ∗ [Y (t) − X(t)] (5) During the interaction, individuals may adopt the
good/bad behaviors of society. The aim of the
At the start, X will learn from the interaction individual is to pick only the good/ acceptable
between X and Y. Towards the end when we need behavior but still, there are chances of acquiring
more exploitation, X will start learning through unacceptable attributes and behavior of others.
the interaction between BestSol and X. newX will Self-contemplation followed by parents’ guidance
be computed using Eq. 1 and scrutiny will help to correct and improve
the inappropriate behavior. From the algorithmic of exploration along with the blend of exploita-
point of view, the individual will be updated if the tion. The basic algorithm is given in Algorithm 2.
cost of the newly created individual is better than The self-learning probability SelfLearningProb
the previous one with percent probability. The
initial value of the percent=0.9 which gradually
increases until it reaches 1. This implies that the Algorithm 2 CrucialTime
maturity level increases with age. The best can- for all members of all families do
didate will be updated only if it is better than rm = random number between 0 & 1
the previous one. The equation for updating the z = random number between share*0.75 & share
individual is given in Eq. 10. m = z-Exploration*0.5
Self LearningP rob = max(m, 0) + 10−7

newX, if fobj (newX) < fobj (X(t))
 if rm < Self LearningP rob then
X(t+1) = newX, or p < percent, p ∈ [0, 1] Compute λ using Eq. (2)
 Step = Compute using Self-learning Eq. (6)
X(t), otherwise

newsol = Compute using Eq. (7)
(10)
where X(t + 1) is the value of the individual for else
the next iteration t+1. Xij = current individual ▷ Xij is jth member
The human being can be in a normal or critical sit- of ith Family
uation. In a critical/emergency (like a natural dis- IR .P osition = Randomly initialize an individ-
aster or pandemic) humans undergo unexpected ual
behavior. Everyone strives hard and seeks external newsol = empty individual
help to improve the situation. In the context of the range = round(Explore)
if range > 2 then
algorithm, if for 10 consecutive iterations, the best
x = randi(ceil(Explore))
individual is not able to improve its cost then it’s else
a crucial time and the whole population will try x=1
to improve itself otherwise it will be updated using end
the different stages of life. A uni-modal function SelectedIndex = randperm(nV ar, x)
may require little or no exploration (Exploration SelectedIndex = sort(SelectedIndex)
is set to zero and thus gives up to 5% chance of newsol.P osition = Xij .P osition
going into a crucial situation after being stuck in for t ∈ SelectedIndex do
newsol.P osition[t] = IR .Position[t]
local optima). On the other hand, multi-modal
end
function requires more exploration when stuck in end
local optima(Exploration=0.25 i.e., giving 25% Clipping newsol
chance of going into a crucial situation). Evaluate newsol
Update the individual Xij if the cost of the newly
created individual newsol is better than Xij with
3.2.3 Crucial time 90 % probability. Best candidate BestSol will be
In the human life span, a person interacts not only updated with Xij only if Xij < BestSol
with friends and family members but also interacts end
with strangers. To overcome the problems faced
by a human in their daily life, they must inter-
act with the outside world to some extent. They ensures the probability of having the process of
gain knowledge from strangers, media, books, sur- exploitation. The value of SelfLearningProb
roundings, technology, etc. gradually increases with share. For uni-modal
From the algorithmic point of view, if the best functions Exploration=0 so giving more chance
individual is stuck in the local optima, it will not for exploitation. For multi-modal functions Explo-
be able to improve its cost (for a long time). In ration= 0.25, so SelfLearningProb=0 until share
such a situation, some external force is needed to = 0.125 and then increases. This shows there will
help it come out of the local optima, for this, the be more exploration at the start and the process
whole population is forced to undergo the process of exploitation gradually increases till the end.
Algorithm 3 Stage 1: Newborn to Infant

for all kids of all families do
Xij = current individual ▷ Xij is jth member of
ith Family
rm = random number between 0 & 1
newsol = empty individual
Compute λ using Eq. (2)
▷ interact with parents with 90% probabil-
ity
if rm < 0.9 then
Y = Select a parent of current individual with
better fitness
Step = Compute Step using Eq. (5)
▷ for interactional learning between Xij and Y
Fig. 5: Exploration process of an individual
through a random individual.
else
ExpertLearningProb = random number
For the process of exploration, a random indi- between 0.5 & 0.8
vidual IR is generated having nVar attributes. IR ▷ Child may interact with other mem-
represents the external world. Randomly substi- bers of the family
tute n (where n ∈ [1, ceil(Explore)]) attributes of rm = random number between 0 & 1
the individual with those of IR [63] as shown in if rm < ExpertLearningP rob then
Step = Compute using Expert-learning
Figure 5. Eq. (8)
3.2.4 Stages
else
In each iteration, the whole family will undergo Step = Compute using Self-learning Eq.
different stages as mentioned in Figure 4. There (6)
are four stages of human life which are given in newsol = Compute using Eq. (7)
Table 2.
end
Newborn to Infant stage starts with the birth
end
till one year. This is the time when there is rapid
Clipping newsol
physical and mental development. The abilities
Evaluate newsol
gifted by nature are polished. Cautiousness and Update the individual Xij if the cost of the newly
readiness abilities are at their peak. The child is created individual newsol is better than Xij with
eager to know about its surroundings but lacks a 90% probability. Best candidate BestSol will be
few natural abilities like proper vision, articula- updated with Xij only if Xij < BestSol
tion, walking, hearing, etc. [56, 57]. The Child has end
maximum interaction with parents. But he/she
does interact with his/her siblings. The algorithm
for stage 1 [63] is given in Algorithm 3. non-family members increases with share. Since
Toddler to Adolescence stage starts from age these probabilities can vary from family to fam-
3 till 19 years. This is the stage when a child ily as well as child to child so for each child these
widens its circle of interaction. Apart from the probabilities are set with 25% buffer. SelfLearn-
family members, the child starts to make friends. ingProb is set such that only uni-modal function
In the start child only interacts with parents can take advantage of exploitation in this case.
as he/she grows he/she interacts with a sibling The algorithm for stage 2 [63] is given in Algo-
and his/her probability to follow parents decrease rithm 4.
with the increase of interaction with other peo- Stages 1 and 2 are executed for kids only so we
ple [56, 57]. The probability to follow parents is need to update parents as well. The parents can
initially set to 90% and gradually decreases as it learn from their own families or from other par-
reaches 10%. Similarly, the probability to follow ents. A parent learns from his family with 60 to
11
80% probability and from other parents with 20

Algorithm 4 Stage 2: Toddler to Adolescence to 40% probability. The details of updation of par-
ents [63] are given in the Algorithm 5.
for all kids of all families do
Start of professional life stage starts from age
Xij = current individual ▷ Xij is jth member of
ith Family
Compute λ using Eq. (2)
z = random number between 0.05 & Algorithm 5 UpdateParents
(0.1+0.1*share) r = random number between 0 & 1
SelfLearningProb=max(z-Exploration*0.1),0) for all parents of all families do
r = random number between 0 & 1 Xij = current individual ▷ Xij is jth member of
if r < Self LearningP rob then ith Family
Step = Compute using Self-learning Eq. (6) FamilyFollowProb = random number between 0.6
newsol = Compute using Eq. (7) & 0.8
else if r < F amilyF ollowP rob then
rNon = random number between 0.75*share & LBesti = Compute Local best for the family i
share Y = Select an individual among LBesti and
▷ Set the probability of following non BestSol
family member ▷ using RouletteWheel
r = random number between 0 & 1 else
▷ interact with non family members with Y = Select an individual among all the parents
rNon% probability and BestSol
if r < rN on then ▷ using RouletteWheel
Y = Select a Non family member using end
RouletteWheel newsol = empty individual
else
rp = random number between rp*0.75 & Compute λ using Eq.(2)
rp ▷ Follow the family Step = Compute Step using Eq. (5)
▷ Set Parents follow probability rp ▷ for interactional learning between Xij and Y
if r < rp then newsol = Compute using Eq. (1)
Y = Select a parent using Roulette- Clipping newsol
Wheel Evaluate newsol
▷ Xi1 or Xi2 are the parents of ith Update the individual Xij if the cost of the newly
Family created individual newsol is better than Xij with
else 90% probability. Best candidate BestSol will be
Y = Select a sibling using Roulette- updated with Xij only if Xij < BestSol
Wheel end
▷ Xi3 , ..., XinM embers are the siblings
of ith Family
end
end 20 till 39 years. This is the time when studies are
newsol = empty individual almost over. A person enters a professional life
Step = Compute Step using Eq. (5) where he is ranked according to his qualification
▷ for interactional learning between Xij and Y and worth. The person with less experience and
newsol = Compute using Eq. (1) worth will have to undergo more expert training
and a learning process. The worth, inspired by
end
learning enthusiasm based teaching strat-
Clipping newsol
Evaluate newsol
egy [35], is determined based on its fitness. The
Update the individual Xij if the cost of the newly better the fitness better will be the rank. The
created individual newsol is better than Xij with whole population is sorted according to their fit-
90% probability. Best candidate BestSol will be ness. The worth of each individual is computed
updated with Xij only if Xij < BestSol using the equation Eq. 11
end
(nP op − i)
Wi = Wmin + (Wmax − Wmin ) (11)
nP op
Algorithm 6 Stage 3: Start of professional life

Expert = BestSol
Mean = Compute Mean of all kids using Eq. (13)
Compute the Worth for whole Population using the
Eq. (11)
for all members of all families do
Compute λ using Eq.(2)
r = random number between 0 & 1
if r < Xij .W then
else
Step = Compute using Expert-learning Eq. (8)
end
Clipping newsol
Evaluate newsol
Update the individual Xij if the cost of the newly
created individual newsol is better than Xij with
90% probability.
Best candidate BestSol will be updated with Xij
Fig. 6: Professional Worth curve. only if Xij < BestSol
end
where Wi is the worth of ith best employee,
Wmax = 1 and Wmin ∈ [0.1, 0.5]. So worth is high
for good employee and low for poor employee as 60 years. At the start of this stage, a person is
shown in Figure 6. fully mature and mostly well settled in life. A
A random number r ∈ [0, 1] is generated for person has strong bonds with the people in the
each individual. If r is less than his/her Worth surroundings. He/she is physically and emotion-
(Xij .W ) then individual will undergo a expert ally stable. The downfall starts as he/she enters
training otherwise a specialized training will this stage. This is the time when the abilities begin
be conducted under the supervision of specialists. to deteriorate slowly. The learning ability gradu-
The equation for expert training is given in Eq. ally decreases. The decision power also declines.
12. The person starts to depend upon the people in
the surrounding. There is a regression in social
newX = X(t) + γλ∥Expert − EF ∗ M ean∥ (12)
and mental health[56]. The details are given in the
where Expert is the BestSol, Expert factor EF ∈ Algorithm 7. The convergence parameter, learning
[1, 2] and the mean of the whole population is parameter, the probability of following parents,
computed as below: Replacement probability (of the poor individ-
  ual with the improved one), and costCount are
(nF amilies) (nM embers) improved in each iteration as shown in the Algo-
1  X X
M ean = Xij  rithm 8.
nP op i=1 j=1 The variable Stage is updated in each iteration
(13) if the path of Crucial time is not taken.
The equation for Specialized training is given
in Eq. 14. Stage = (Stage + 1) mod 4 (15)
(
Expert Learning, if multi-modal
newX = (
Expert Learning + Wuni , otherwise 4, if Stage == 0
(14) Stage = (16)
Stage, otherwise
where Wuni = γλ∥Expert − EF ∗ M ean∥. The
detailed algorithm is given in Algorithm 6. Adult- This will ensure that all four stages are executed
hood to old age stage starts from age 40 till one by one in their proper order.
13
Algorithm 7 Stage 4: Adulthood to old age 3.3 Complexity analysis

for all members of all families do The space and time complexity are the two impor-
Compute λ using Eq.(2) tant factors to consider while evaluating the per-
formance of an algorithm.
z = generate a random number
There are N individuals in the population and each
▷ z ∈ [0.75 ∗ (1 − share), (1 − share) + 10−7 ]
LearnFromSurProb = 10 z individual has D dimensions so the total Space
r = random number between 0 & 1 Complexity is O(ND).
if r < LearnF romSurP rob then In order to evaluate the time complexity, we need
Y = Randomly select an individual from the to compute the time complexity of each sub-
surrounding module as given in Table 3. For one iteration the
Step = Compute Step using Eq. (5) complexity is O(N D + N Cobj ). Since there are T
▷ for interactional learning between Xij and Y iterations so the total time complexity of the entire
Step = (1-share)*Step
algorithm is O(T N D + T N Cobj ) as given in Eq.
17.
else
z = random number between 0.75*(1-share) &
(1-share) (
m = z-Exploration*0.5 O(T N Cobj ), if D ≤ Cobj
SelfLearningProb=max(m, 0) + 10−7
Time Complexity =
O(T N D), otherwise
r = random number between 0 & 1
(17)
if r < Self LearningP rob then
Step = Compute using Self-learning Eq.
(6) 4 Experiments
Step = (1-share)*Step
newsol = Compute using Eq. (7) The performance of CLO is evaluated using
else 100 benchmark functions [including 13 shifted,
Step = Compute using Expert-learning
rotated, hybrid, and composite functions from
Eq. (8)
Step = (1-share)*Step CEC-BC-2017]. Details of 13 CEC-BC-2017 func-
newsol = Compute using Eq. (9) tions are given in Table 4). To cover a wide
end range of problems requiring a different degree
end of exploration and exploitation, these 87 bench-
Clipping newsol mark functions are classified into four categories
Evaluate newsol depending on their scalability and complexity.
• Uni-modal fixed dimension benchmark func-
Update the individual Xij if the cost of the newly tions (details are given in Table 5)
created individual newsol is better than Xij with • Uni-modal variable dimension benchmark
90% probability. functions (details are given in Table 6)
Best candidate BestSol will be updated with Xij • Multi-modal fixed dimension benchmark
only if Xij < BestSol
functions (details are given in Table 7)
end • Multi-modal variable dimension benchmark
functions (details are given in Table 8)
Uni-modal functions require more exploitation
Algorithm 8 UpdateParameters
whereas multi-modal demand more exploration to
Explore = Explore - Ex change
come out of local optima. Generally, there should
Epsilon = Epsilon - Epsilon change
rp = rp - Prob change be more exploitation in the start of the algo-
percent = percent + percent change rithm and once the promising region is grasped
the exploitation helps to reach the global optima.
if prevCost == BestSol.Cost then A good balance is required between the two. For
costCount = costCount+1 the experimentation purpose, the population size
else nPop = 30 is taken for CLO. This population is
costCount = 0
further divided into six families having 2 parents
end
each and at least one kid. So, each family will be
Sub-module Time complexity Description
Initialization O(ND) N individuals with D dimensions
Fitness evaluation O(DCobj ) Cobj is the cost of the objective function
Update γ (Gamma) O(1) Only γ is updated
Update Parents O(nParents x D) Only parents with D dimensions are updated
Stage 1 O(nKids x D) Only kids with D dimensions are updated
Stage 2 O(nKids x D) Only kids with D dimensions are updated
Stage 1 + Update Parents O(N x D) N = nPop = nParents + nKids
Stage 2 + Update Parents O(N x D) N = nPop = nParents + nKids
Stage 3 O(N x D) Whole population is updated
Stage 4 O(N x D) Whole population is updated
Crucial time O(N x D) Whole population is updated
Update Parameters O(1) Only few variables are updated

Table 3: Time Complexity of each sub-module.
F.no. Name Var Range fmin F.no. Name Var Range fmin
Multi-modal functions (Shifted and Rotated) F1 Beale 2 [−4.5,4.5] 0

F88 Rosenbrock’s Function 10 [100,100] 300 F2 Booth 2 [−10,10] 0
F89 Rastrigin’s Function 10 [100,100] 400 F3 Brent 2 [−10,10] 0
F90 Expanded Scaffer’s 10 [100,100] 500 F4 Matyas 2 [−10,10] 0
F6 Function F5 Schaffer N.4 2 [−100,100] 0.292579
F91 Lunacek BiRastrigin 10 [100,100] 600 F6 Wayburn 2 [−500,500] 19.10588
Function Seader 3
F92 Non-Continuous 10 [100,100] 700 F7 Cube 2 [−10,10] 0
Rastrigin’s Function F8 Zettl 2 [−5,10] −0.00379
F93 Levy Function 10 [100,100] 800 F9 Trid6 6 [−36,36] −50
F94 Schwefel’s Function 10 [100,100] 900 F10 Trid10 10 [−100, 100] −210
F11 El-Attar 2 [−500,500] 0.47043
Hybrid functions (N = basic number of functions) Vidyasagar
F95 Hybrid Function 1 10 [100,100] 1000 Dutta Function
(N =3) F12 Rotated Ellipse 3 [-500,500] 1
F96 Hybrid Function 2 10 [100,100] 1100 2 Function
(N =3)
F97 Hybrid Function 3 10 [100,100] 1200 Table 5: Uni-modal fixed dimension benchmark
(N =3)
F98 Hybrid Function 6 10 [100,100] 1700
functions.
(N =5)
Composite functions (N=3)

F99 Composite Function 1 10 [100,100] 2000
F100 Composite Function 2 10 [100,100] 2100
The CLO algorithm is compared with 12 state-
Table 4: CEC 2017 benchmark functions. of-the-art algorithms. The algorithm details along
with parameter settings (taken from their respec-
tive papers) are given in Table 9. For a fair com-
parison, the number of evaluations of the objective
having a least 3 family members and a maximum function for each algorithm is set to 75,000.
of 15 family members. The algorithm is imple- The system with Intel(R) Core (TM) i7-10510U
mented in MATLAB. CPU @ 1.80GHz 2.30 GHz and 16GB RAM is used
15
F.no. Name Var Range fmin
F.no. Name Var Range fmin F61 Schwefel’s 2.26 30 [–500,500] 0

(Shifted)
F13 Sphere 30 [−100,100] 0 F62 Rastrigin 30 [-5.12,5.12] 0
F14 Powell Sum 30 [−1,1] 0 F63 Periodic 30 [-10,10] 0.9
F15 Schwefel’s 2.20 30 [−100,100] 0 F64 Qing 30 [-500,500] 0
F16 Step 30 [−100,100] 0 F65 Xin-She-Yang 30 [-5,5] 0
F17 Stepint 30 [−5.12,5.12] −155 F66 Ackley 30 [-32,32] 0
F18 Schwefel’s 2.22 30 [−100,100] 0 F67 Trignometric 2 30 [-500,500] 0
F19 Schwefel’s 2.23 30 [−10,10] 0 F68 Salomon 30 [-100,100] 0
F20 Rosenbrock 30 [−30,30] 0 F69 Styblinski-Tang 30 [-5,5] -1174.98
F21 Brown 30 [−1,4] 0 F70 Griewank 30 [-100,100] 0
F22 Dixon and Price 30 [−10,10] 0 F71 Xin-She-Yang 30 [-10,10] -1
F23 Perm 0,D,Beta 5 [−5,5] 0 N. 4
F24 Sum Squares 30 [−10,10] 0 F72 Xin-She-Yang 30 [−2π, 2π] 0
F25 Zakharov 10 [−5,10] 0 N. 2
F26 Schwefel 30 [−100,100] 0 F73 Gen.-Penalized 30 [-50,50] 0
F27 Schumer 30 [−100,100] 0 F74 Penalized 30 [-50,50] 0
Steiglitz Function F75 Michalewics 30 [-0,π] -29.6309
F28 Schwefel 1.2 30 [−100,100] 0 F76 Quartic-Noise 30 [-1.28,1.28] 0
F77 Kowalik 4 [−5,5] 0.00031
Table 6: Uni-modal variable dimension F78 Foxholes 2 [-y,y] 0.998
benchmark functions. y=65.54
F79 Langerman2 2 [0,10] 1.08
F80 Trignometric 1 30 [-500,500] 0
F81 Michalewicz2 2 [0, π] -1.8013
F82 Michalewicz5 5 [0, π] -4.6877
F83 Michalewicz10 10 [0, π] -9.6602
F84 Schwefel 2.26 30 [-y,y] -12569.5
y=500
F.no. Name Var Range fmin F85 FletcherPowell2 2 [−π, π] 0
F86 FletcherPowell5 5 [−π, π] 0
F29 Egg Crate 2 [−5,5] 0 F87 FletcherPowell10 10 [−π, π] 0
F30 Ackley N.3 2 [−32,32] 195.63
F31 Adjiman 2 [−1,2] 2.02 Table 8: Multi-modal variable dimension
F32 Bird 2 [−2π, 2π] −106.77
F33 Camel 6 2 [−5,5] −1.03 benchmark functions.
Hump
F34 Branin 2 [−5,5] 0.40
RCOS
F35 Goldstien 2 [−2,2] 3
Price to simulate all the algorithms which are imple-
F36 Hartman 3 3 [0,1] −3.86 mented in MATLAB (by the authors). The results
F37 Hartman 6 6 [0,1] −3.32
F38 Cross-in-tray 2 [−10,10] −2.06 are produced by taking the mean of 30 runs for
F39 Bartels Conn 2 [−500,500] 1 each benchmark function with random initializa-
F40 Bukin 6 2 [−(15,5),(5,3)] 0
F41 Carrom Table 2 [−10,10] −24.16 tion of the population. The algorithms are ranked
F42 Chichinadze 2 [-30,30] −43.32 using a non-parametric statistical Friedman’s
F43 Cross function 2 [−10,10] 0
F44 Cross leg table 2 [−10,10] 1 Mean Rank (FMR) test [74–76]. The smaller
F45 Crowned cross 2 [−10,10] 0 the value of rank the better algorithm is.
F46 Easom 2 [−100,100] −1
F47 Giunta 2 [−1,1] 0.06
F48 Helical Valley 3 [−10,10] 0
F49
F50
Himmelblau
Holder Table 2
2
2
[−5,5]
[−10,10]
0
−19.21
5 Result
F51 Pen Holder 2 [−11,11] −0.96
F52 Test Tube 2 [−10,10] −10.87 For the uni-modal functions the performance com-
Holder parison of algorithms is given in Table 11 and
F53 Shubert 2 [−10,10] −186.73
F54 Three-Hump 2 [−5,5] 0 12. CLO outperformed all others in uni-modal
Camel fixed dimension benchmark functions. TLSBO
F55 Bohachevsky1 2 [−100,100] 0
F56 Bohachevsky2 2 [−100,100] 0 and DOA algorithms performed well securing the
F57 Bohachevsky3 2 [−100,100] 0 second and third position respectively. While in
F58 Shekel 4 [0,10] −10.54
F59 Bukin 4 2 [−(15,5),(5,3)] 0 variable dimensional uni-modal functions CLO
F60 Bukin 2 2 [−(15,5),(5,3)] −424.75 outperformed other algorithms except in F23,
Table 7: Multi-modal fixed dimension F26, F16, F22, F28, F27 benchmark functions.
benchmark functions. HBO secured the second position and DA the
least. The overall ranking of different algorithms
for uni-modal functions according to FMR is
Sr. Algorithms Parameter Setting Year
1 Imitation based Cognitive Learning Optimizer (CLO) N=30, [C=7, Exploration=0.25] for multi-modal dimension
and [C=7, Exploration=0] for uni-modal functions -
2 Dwarf Mongoose Optimization Algorithm (DMO) [17] N=20 2022
3 Dingo Optimization Algorithm (DOA) [65] N=100 2021
4 Flow Direction Algorithm (FDA) [66] N=50, beta=1 2021
5 Teaching-Learning-Studying-Based Optimization (TLSBO)[49] N=50 2021
6 Generalized Normal Distribution Optimization (GNDO) [67] N=30 2020
7 Heap Based Optimizer (HBO) [64] N=50, C=25 for uni-modal and C=42 for multi-modal functions 2020
8 Butterfly Optimization Algorithm (BOA) [68] N= 50, p=0.8, power exponent=0.1, sensory modality=0.01 2019
9 Salp Swarm Optimization (SSA) [69] N=30 2017
10 Sine Cosine Algorithm (SCA) [70] N = 30; a = 2; [r 1, r 2, r 3, r 4] 2016
11 Moth Flame Optimization (MFO) [71] N=30 2015
12 Multi-Verse Optimizer (MVO) [72] N=30 2015
13 Dragonfly Algorith (DA) [73] N=30 2015
Table 9: Algorithms and their parameter settings used for comparative analysis.
Fig. 7: The FMR test for uni-modal benchmark Fig. 8: The FMR test for multi-modal
functions benchmark functions
given in Figure 7. The smallest value of FMR rotated and shifted version of the multi-modal
for CLO shows that it is good at exploitation. benchmark functions, some hybrid functions with
Uni-modal functions have only one global/local different basic number of functions and composite
optimum. The algorithm can thoroughly investi- functions.
gate the promising area to find out the optimum. The detailed FMR values are given in Table
The performance comparison of algorithms for 10. The smallest value of FMR for CLO clearly
multi-modal functions is given in Table 13 and demonstrates the overall better performance.
14. For multi-modal fixed dimension benchmark
functions, CLO comparatively performed better
in 26 out of 32 functions. The Performance in
6 functions (F40, F44, F51, F59, F60 and F48)
is comparable. Similarly, CLO performed well in
17/27 multi-modal variable dimension benchmark
functions. The overall ranking of competing algo-
rithms for multi-modal functions is given in the
Figure 8, which clearly depicts the superiority of
CLO over the other algorithms.
Multi-modal functions have many local optima
along with one global optimum. There are chances
of getting stuck in local optima. The lowest FMR
value for CLO proves the good exploration and
exploitation ability of the algorithm.
The comparative performance of different algo-
rithms on thirteen CEC-BC-2017 benchmark
functions is given in Table 15.
CEC-BC-2017 benchmark functions consist of the
17
DMO DOA FDA TLSBO GNDO HBO BOA SSA1 SCA MFO MVO DA CLO
uni-modal fixed 4.54 6.58 5.08 4.75 8.54 5.33 11.54 8.04 7.79 6.63 8.08 9.96 4.13
uni-modal variable 7.59 3.56 6.41 3.19 9.38 5.16 7.88 8.13 6.94 10.84 8.31 11.81 1.81
mutli-modal fixed 6.33 6.57 5.76 4.98 8.43 3.11 9.70 7.89 9.37 8.50 7.28 10.93 2.15
multi-modal variable 5.23 6.16 5.69 5.98 7.28 5.30 11.02 8.48 7.80 6.30 8.31 9.02 4.44
CEC-BC-2017 4.86 8.27 5.45 2.86 4.41 7.64 12.64 3.45 10.73 10.09 6.00 11.82 2.77
Table 10: Performance comparison of KLO with other algorithms on benchmark functions using FMR
F.No Stats DMO DOA FDA TLSBO GNDO HBO BOA SSA1 SCA MFO MVO DA CLO
Med 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.8E-32 0.0E+00 2.2E-02 0.0E+00 2.8E-05 0.0E+00 1.2E-08 6.6E-08 0.0E+00
F1 Mean 0.0E+00 1.4E-32 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.9E-32 0.0E+00 8.8E-02 2.2E-02 4.0E-05 2.8E-33 2.0E-01 3.4E-03 0.0E+00
Std 0.0E+00 3.9E-32 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 6.2E-33 0.0E+00 1.4E-01 1.2E-01 3.3E-05 8.5E-33 3.4E-01 1.9E-02 0.0E+00
F2 Mean 0.0E+00 6.0E-31 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 7.9E-31 0.0E+00 4.4E-03 0.0E+00 2.0E-04 0.0E+00 2.9E-08 7.7E-06 0.0E+00
Std 0.0E+00 2.5E-30 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.0E-02 0.0E+00 1.5E-04 0.0E+00 2.5E-08 1.3E-05 0.0E+00
Med 1.4E-87 1.4E-87 1.4E-87 1.4E-87 1.6E-28 1.4E-87 6.3E+00 1.4E-87 1.4E-87 1.4E-87 1.4E-87 1.4E-87 1.4E-87
F3 Mean 1.4E-87 1.4E-87 1.4E-87 1.4E-87 3.0E-19 1.4E-87 7.7E+00 1.4E-87 1.4E-87 1.4E-87 1.4E-87 1.4E-87 1.4E-87
Std 6.8E-103 6.8E-103 6.8E-103 6.8E-103 1.6E-18 6.8E-103 7.6E+00 6.8E-103 6.8E-103 6.8E-103 6.8E-103 6.8E-103 6.8E-103
Med 7.8E-202 2.2E-233 3.4E-130 4.3E-151 1.7E-301 1.7E-128 1.7E-14 5.5E-115 9.3E-290 1.0E-201 4.6E-10 0.0E+00 0.0E+00
F4 Mean 1.0E-192 2.4E-138 3.1E-121 2.7E-148 6.0E-294 1.8E-112 1.6E-14 3.5E-88 1.2E-268 4.1E-138 8.1E-10 3.5E-07 0.0E+00
Std 0.0E+00 1.1E-137 1.7E-120 1.1E-147 0.0E+00 9.9E-112 7.4E-15 1.9E-87 0.0E+00 1.6E-137 7.4E-10 1.2E-06 0.0E+00
Med 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01
F5 Mean 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01
Std 8.9E-17 6.8E-17 8.9E-17 7.1E-12 8.3E-14 7.6E-17 7.4E-05 5.7E-14 3.5E-08 7.8E-04 1.8E-07 1.6E-05 9.8E-17
Med 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01
F6 Mean 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01 1.9E+01
Med 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 Inf 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00
F7 Mean 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 Inf 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00
Std 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 NaN 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00
Med -3.8E-03 -3.8E-03 -3.8E-03 -3.8E-03 -3.8E-03 -3.8E-03 z1 -3.7E-03 -3.8E-03 -3.8E-03 -3.8E-03 -3.8E-03 -3.8E-03
F8 Mean -3.8E-03 -3.8E-03 -3.8E-03 -3.8E-03 -3.8E-03 -3.8E-03 z1 -3.7E-03 -3.8E-03 -3.8E-03 -3.8E-03 -3.8E-03 -3.8E-03
Med -5.0E+01 -5.0E+01 -5.0E+01 -5.0E+01 -5.0E+01 -5.0E+01 z1 -3.2E+01 -4.6E+01 -5.0E+01 -5.0E+01 -5.0E+01 -5.0E+01
F9 Mean -5.0E+01 -4.9E+01 -5.0E+01 -5.0E+01 -5.0E+01 -5.0E+01 z1 -3.0E+01 -4.4E+01 -5.0E+01 -5.0E+01 -5.0E+01 -5.0E+01
Std 2.9E-14 3.7E+00 3.6E-14 2.9E-14 9.6E-03 5.7E-14 7.2E+00 9.3E+00 5.7E+00 2.8E-14 1.9E-05 3.4E-01 9.0E-14
Std 1.2E-03 3.5E+01 1.4E-12 1.2E-11 1.7E+01 5.6E-03 9.7E+00 3.9E+01 2.1E+01 1.9E+02 2.6E-03 6.8E+01 4.6E-06
Std 1.1E-15 1.0E-15 1.1E-15 1.0E-15 1.5E+01 8.7E-16 3.4E-02 6.6E-16 2.8E-02 6.4E+00 3.2E-03 1.2E+01 8.5E-16
Med 0.0E+00 2.6E-241 2.2E-193 4.7E-254 4.9407e-324 4.4E-272 2.1E-14 1.1E-118 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.3E-05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00
F12 Mean 0.0E+00 4.5E-133 1.6E-189 7.4E-250 4.9407e-324 3.4E-256 2.2E-14 5.8E-118 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.4E-05 1.5E-02 0.0E+00
Std 0.0E+00 2.5E-132 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 8.8E-15 8.3E-118 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.3E-05 8.3E-02 0.0E+00
Table 11: Evaluation of CLO and its comparison with other algorithms on uni-modal fixed dimension
benchmark functions
Med 9.1E-12 1.9E-196 2.1E-08 4.2E-63 7.8E+01 1.4E-35 2.7E-13 2.8E-07 1.7E-13 2.2E-17 4.7E-02 8.7E+02 4.8E-186
F13 Mean 1.5E-11 5.1E-76 3.1E-08 5.1E-63 1.1E+02 4.0E-35 2.7E-13 2.9E-07 1.4E-11 2.3E+03 5.1E-02 9.0E+02 3.0E-181
Std 1.8E-11 2.8E-75 2.7E-08 3.8E-63 1.1E+02 6.1E-35 1.7E-14 1.7E-07 4.7E-11 5.0E+03 1.4E-02 3.8E+02 0.0E+00
Med 4.5E-14 2.1E-238 7.3E-22 3.9E-183 9.0E-13 8.3E-89 8.9E-16 2.7E-38 2.9E-26 7.9E-47 2.5E-08 1.2E-05 0.0E+00
F14 Mean 6.0E-12 6.4E-92 4.4E-20 1.1E-180 1.1E-10 1.2E-80 1.3E-15 4.7E-37 2.2E-17 2.0E-40 2.7E-08 2.6E-05 0.0E+00
Std 3.2E-11 3.5E-91 1.1E-19 0.0E+00 3.8E-10 6.7E-80 1.7E-15 9.5E-37 1.2E-16 1.1E-39 1.8E-08 3.7E-05 0.0E+00
Med 1.4E-09 3.5E-118 7.3E-06 3.0E-31 2.0E+01 5.3E-23 1.7E-10 3.5E-04 4.5E-15 1.0E+02 1.7E+00 1.4E+02 8.4E-118
F15 Mean 1.7E-09 1.3E-50 8.6E-06 4.0E-31 2.2E+01 5.9E-23 1.7E-10 3.6E-04 4.0E-13 1.2E+02 1.7E+00 1.4E+02 6.2E-116
Med 1.0E-11 2.9E+00 3.7E-08 2.1E-27 6.2E+01 6.5E-32 5.5E+00 2.2E-07 4.1E+00 5.1E-17 5.0E-02 7.8E+02 9.8E-27
F16 Mean 1.5E-11 2.9E+00 7.6E-08 9.5E-27 1.3E+02 1.8E-31 5.4E+00 3.0E-07 4.1E+00 4.3E+03 5.3E-02 9.8E+02 4.6E-26
Std 0.0E+00 1.7E+01 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 5.2E+00 0.0E+00 1.0E+01 7.9E+00 5.5E+00 0.0E+00 3.1E+00 1.6E+01 0.0E+00
Med 2.6E-06 1.3E-124 2.4E-01 2.9E-30 2.6E+01 3.2E-23 1.0E+41 1.1E+36 8.1E-15 5.0E+02 6.5E+10 5.6E+02 1.2E-118
F18 Mean 2.9E-05 1.4E-70 1.9E+02 5.3E-30 3.5E+01 3.7E-23 7.5E+41 1.7E+37 1.4E-13 5.0E+02 1.9E+16 5.9E+02 6.9E-116
Std 8.5E-05 7.5E-70 2.9E+02 4.9E-30 3.2E+01 2.6E-23 1.2E+42 4.6E+37 2.5E-13 2.4E+02 6.6E+16 2.2E+02 2.4E-115
Med 7.2E-04 0.0E+00 3.7E-13 1.1E-247 4.5E-01 5.1E-77 2.3E-20 5.7E-34 1.1E-13 1.2E-33 5.5E-18 1.9E+02 9.5E-305
F19 Mean 5.9E-03 1.9E-133 5.6E-12 3.0E-244 1.7E+01 2.3E-74 2.3E-20 2.9E-32 6.8E-05 4.4E-23 1.5E-17 2.7E+03 3.1E-285
Std 1.5E-02 1.1E-132 1.7E-11 0.0E+00 7.2E+01 1.1E-73 3.6E-21 8.7E-32 3.6E-04 2.4E-22 2.3E-17 6.9E+03 0.0E+00
Std 5.7E+01 5.0E-02 2.9E+01 5.2E-01 1.6E+04 3.2E+01 3.1E-02 1.8E+01 5.6E-01 3.4E+04 5.0E+02 9.7E+04 4.5E-01
Med 2.8E-14 1.3E-202 1.8E-07 5.6E-66 4.5E+00 4.0E-38 9.5E-14 3.1E-09 1.7E-16 1.3E+01 1.2E-04 2.6E+00 7.2E-190
F22 Mean 1.1E+00 9.0E-01 7.3E-01 6.7E-01 1.4E+02 6.8E-01 9.8E-01 3.8E-01 6.7E-01 3.4E+04 1.4E+00 1.1E+03 6.7E-01
Std 1.0E+00 5.0E-02 2.5E-01 9.0E-17 2.0E+02 5.1E-02 8.7E-03 2.8E-01 1.4E-03 9.7E+04 2.0E+00 8.3E+02 1.2E-09
Med 8.8E-01 2.6E-02 1.0E-02 6.0E+00 2.1E-02 5.0E-01 1.2E+03 9.3E-01 2.3E+01 3.4E-01 1.5E-01 4.4E+01 6.5E-02
F23 Mean 1.4E+00 2.0E+00 4.4E-02 6.6E+00 1.5E+00 7.7E-01 1.5E+03 3.0E+01 2.8E+01 2.1E+02 2.9E-01 5.3E+02 1.3E-01
Std 1.7E+00 9.9E+00 8.5E-02 5.0E+00 3.4E+00 8.0E-01 1.6E+03 1.3E+02 3.0E+01 1.1E+03 3.3E-01 1.2E+03 1.7E-01
Med 7.4E-22 6.5E-189 6.4E-17 2.3E-40 1.0E-06 2.5E-23 2.2E-13 1.1E-01 2.9E-44 1.9E-39 2.5E-05 1.0E+00 2.6E-249
F25 Mean 4.3E-21 5.8E-78 6.2E-16 1.3E-39 2.5E-04 3.8E-22 2.2E-13 2.5E-01 1.1E-36 1.1E+01 2.8E-05 9.6E+00 4.2E-238
Std 1.4E-20 3.2E-77 1.2E-15 2.0E-39 6.7E-04 1.3E-21 1.5E-14 2.9E-01 5.8E-36 1.5E+01 1.4E-05 3.0E+01 0.0E+00
Med 1.2E+21 0.0E+00 1.2E+07 5.1E-34 2.5E+14 3.5E+16 2.6E+25 2.9E+23 1.2E+13 2.1E+21 5.1E+03 1.1E+21 4.1E-53
F26 Mean 2.6E+21 3.5E-109 2.2E+08 2.2E-31 2.7E+15 4.0E+19 3.9E+25 3.3E+23 1.4E+17 1.8E+22 1.8E+04 6.0E+21 9.3E-40
Std 3.4E+21 1.9E-108 5.0E+08 8.3E-31 7.0E+15 8.7E+19 5.5E+25 2.2E+23 4.9E+17 4.6E+22 2.9E+04 1.6E+22 3.9E-39
Med 3.2E+07 0.0E+00 2.8E+02 1.3E-14 4.3E+04 4.9E+06 2.7E-16 1.8E+06 2.1E+04 5.0E+07 3.4E+01 3.0E+07 1.0E-08
F27 Mean 3.6E+07 2.2E-93 9.0E+02 3.2E-13 7.3E+04 7.6E+06 2.7E-16 1.9E+06 5.1E+05 7.0E+07 4.1E+01 3.1E+07 1.7E-04
Std 1.7E+07 1.2E-92 2.8E+03 1.1E-12 9.8E+04 8.5E+06 3.3E-17 1.1E+06 1.2E+06 6.4E+07 3.5E+01 2.8E+07 3.9E-04
Med 1.7E+04 5.8E-205 5.1E+00 3.6E-07 6.5E+02 2.1E+03 2.6E-13 3.5E+03 3.3E+02 1.5E+04 7.1E+00 8.6E+03 4.2E-12
F28 Mean 1.6E+04 5.3E-81 5.7E+00 7.0E-07 7.7E+02 3.7E+03 2.6E-13 3.5E+03 7.8E+02 1.8E+04 7.2E+00 9.8E+03 9.2E-10
Std 5.8E+03 2.9E-80 5.1E+00 9.6E-07 4.0E+02 3.9E+03 1.6E-14 5.7E+02 1.1E+03 1.5E+04 2.4E+00 7.7E+03 3.5E-09
Table 12: Evaluation of CLO and its comparison with other algorithms on uni-modal variable
dimension benchmark functions
CLO 19
Med 0.0E+00 9.1E-235 9.2E-126 4.1E-273 1.2846e-322 0.0E+00 8.5E-21 8.7E-119 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.1E-08 1.8E-13 0.0E+00
F29 Mean 0.0E+00 9.8E-142 3.3E-118 8.4E-270 1.28E-322 0.0E+00 5.1E-19 3.0E-118 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 5.2E-08 9.0E-06 0.0E+00
Std 0.0E+00 5.4E-141 1.8E-117 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.5E-18 5.4E-118 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 6.5E-08 3.1E-05 0.0E+00
Med -2.0E+02 -2.0E+02 -2.0E+02 -2.0E+02 -2.0E+02 -2.0E+02 z 1 -2.0E+02 -2.0E+02 -2.0E+02 -2.0E+02 -2.0E+02 -2.0E+02
F30 Mean -2.0E+02 -2.0E+02 -2.0E+02 -2.0E+02 -2.0E+02 -2.0E+02 z 1 -1.9E+02 -2.0E+02 -2.0E+02 -2.0E+02 -2.0E+02 -2.0E+02
Std 5.8E-14 5.8E-14 5.8E-14 5.8E-14 8.7E-14 5.8E-14 NaN 1.6E+00 4.7E-05 5.8E-14 8.9E-07 2.5E-04 5.8E-14
Std 3.6E-14 3.8E-14 2.5E-14 3.1E-14 1.8E-14 3.1E-14 1.2E+03 5.9E+00 2.0E-02 2.8E-14 4.9E+00 5.7E-04 3.8E-14
Med -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00 NaN -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00
Std 6.8E-16 6.3E-16 6.8E-16 6.6E-16 4.5E-16 6.8E-16 NaN 9.4E-03 1.1E-05 6.8E-16 1.2E-08 1.5E-05 6.6E-16
Std 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 4.2E-02 0.0E+00 1.9E-04 0.0E+00 6.2E-09 2.5E-07 0.0E+00
Std 1.2E-15 1.8E-15 1.4E-15 1.2E-15 1.3E-15 1.2E-15 2.5E-02 1.8E-15 5.9E-06 1.5E-15 1.5E+01 3.3E-05 1.4E-15
Med -2.1E+00 -2.1E+00 -2.1E+00 -2.1E+00 -2.1E+00 -2.1E+00 -1.2E+04 -2.1E+00 -2.1E+00 -2.1E+00 -2.1E+00 -2.1E+00 -2.1E+00
F38 Mean -2.1E+00 -2.1E+00 -2.1E+00 -2.1E+00 -2.1E+00 -2.1E+00 -Inf 0.0E+00 -2.1E+00 -2.1E+00 -2.1E+00 -2.1E+00 -2.1E+00
Std 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 8.6E-04 7.0E-02 0.0E+00
Std 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.2E-04 0.0E+00 3.7E-04 1.2E-13 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 4.9E+00
F41 Mean -2.4E+01 -2.4E+01 -2.4E+01 -2.4E+01 -2.4E+01 -2.4E+01 z 1 0.0E+00 -2.4E+01 -2.4E+01 -2.4E+01 -2.4E+01 -2.4E+01
Std 1.1E-14 5.8E-01 1.0E-14 1.1E-14 1.2E-10 7.9E-15 NaN 1.3E+14 1.6E-02 1.2E-14 2.3E-07 1.1E+00 1.0E-14
Med -8.5E-02 -1.0E+00 -8.5E-02 -3.4E-03 -2.6E-04 -8.5E-02 -1.4E-04 -1.3E-04 -2.7E-04 -8.5E-02 -3.6E-04 -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00
F44 Mean -1.1E-01 -1.0E+00 -1.1E-01 -3.2E-02 -4.7E-04 -8.5E-02 -5.6E-04 -1.3E-04 -4.0E-01 -1.1E-01 -3.9E-04 -7.7E-01 -6.0E-01
Std 1.7E-01 0.0E+00 1.7E-01 3.9E-02 7.0E-04 3.6E-04 2.3E-03 1.2E-05 5.0E-01 1.7E-01 1.4E-04 4.3E-01 4.6E-01
Std 8.6E-06 4.1E-20 6.3E-03 7.6E-02 1.8E-01 0.0E+00 1.8E-01 5.3E-04 2.2E-01 1.5E-02 2.9E-02 5.4E-02 5.6E-04
Med -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00 z 1 -5.9E-01 -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00
F46 Mean -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00 z 1 -5.9E-01 -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00 -9.0E-01 -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00
Std 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 6.1E+00 3.1E-01 8.4E-04 0.0E+00 3.1E-01 1.0E-06 0.0E+00
Std 3.9E-47 6.4E-27 1.5E-109 1.6E-31 0.0E+00 1.4E-18 1.2E-02 9.7E-01 6.5E-04 7.0E-04 1.3E-05 1.2E-01 1.9E-67
Med -1.9E+01 -1.9E+01 -1.9E+01 -1.9E+01 -1.9E+01 -1.9E+01 -Inf -Inf -1.9E+01 -1.9E+01 -1.9E+01 -1.9E+01 -1.9E+01
F50
20 CLO
Mean -1.9E+01 -1.9E+01 -1.9E+01 -1.9E+01 -1.9E+01 -1.9E+01 -Inf -Inf -1.9E+01 -1.9E+01 -1.9E+01 -1.9E+01 -1.9E+01
Std 1.1E-14 6.9E-15 8.2E-15 1.1E-14 7.3E-12 8.9E-15 NaN NaN 4.9E-03 2.2E-01 1.1E-07 3.1E-01 8.2E-15
Med -9.6E-01 -9.6E-01 -9.6E-01 -9.6E-01 -9.6E-01 -9.6E-01 -1.0E+00 -1.0E+00 -9.6E-01 -9.6E-01 -9.6E-01 -9.6E-01 -9.6E-01
F51 Mean -9.6E-01 -9.6E-01 -9.6E-01 -9.6E-01 -9.6E-01 -9.6E-01 -1.0E+00 -9.9E-01 -9.6E-01 -9.6E-01 -9.6E-01 -9.6E-01 -9.6E-01
Std 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.6E-13 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.6E-02 1.6E-05 0.0E+00 2.9E-10 9.1E-07 0.0E+00
Med -1.1E+01 -1.1E+01 -1.1E+01 -1.1E+01 -1.1E+01 -1.1E+01 -Inf -1.1E+01 -1.1E+01 -1.1E+01 -1.1E+01 -1.1E+01 -1.1E+01
F52 Mean -1.1E+01 -1.1E+01 -1.1E+01 -1.1E+01 -1.1E+01 -1.1E+01 -Inf -1.1E+01 -1.1E+01 -1.1E+01 -1.1E+01 -1.1E+01 -1.1E+01
Med 0.0E+00 1.7E-267 2.5E-127 6.8E-267 4.94E-324 8.0E-302 2.2E-16 2.4E-116 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.6E-09 0.0E+00 0.0E+00
F54 Mean 0.0E+00 1.3E-137 3.2E-122 6.3E-263 4.94E-324 3.3E-283 3.4E-16 3.2E-94 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.4E-09 1.3E-07 0.0E+00
Std 0.0E+00 7.1E-137 1.4E-121 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.8E-16 1.2E-93 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.3E-09 4.1E-07 0.0E+00
Med 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.1E-16 0.0E+00 8.9E-16 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.0E-05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00
F55 Mean 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.4E-02 0.0E+00 4.7E-10 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.0E-05 7.8E-03 0.0E+00
Std 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 7.5E-02 0.0E+00 2.5E-09 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.6E-05 4.2E-02 0.0E+00
Med 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 5.6E-17 0.0E+00 3.3E-15 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.3E-05 1.3E-08 0.0E+00
Std 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 9.6E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.3E-05 9.9E-03 0.0E+00
Med 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 5.6E-17 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 6.2E-06 0.0E+00 0.0E+00
Std 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.3E-17 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.1E-05 1.0E-02 0.0E+00
Med 9.0E+02 9.0E+02 9.0E+02 9.0E+02 9.0E+02 9.0E+02 7.0E-02 9.0E+02 9.0E+02 9.0E+02 9.0E+02 9.0E+02 3.9E+01
F59 Mean 9.0E+02 9.0E+02 9.0E+02 9.0E+02 9.0E+02 9.0E+02 7.0E-02 9.0E+02 9.0E+02 9.0E+02 9.0E+02 9.0E+02 4.3E+01
Std 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.8E-17 3.0E-14 7.8E-07 0.0E+00 6.3E-07 0.0E+00 7.7E+00
Med -4.2E+02 -4.2E+02 -4.2E+02 -4.2E+02 -4.2E+02 -4.2E+02 -4.2E+02 -9.2E+02 -4.2E+02 -4.2E+02 -4.2E+02 -4.2E+02 -4.2E+02
F60 Mean -4.2E+02 -4.2E+02 -4.2E+02 -4.2E+02 -4.2E+02 -4.2E+02 -4.2E+02 -9.3E+02 -4.2E+02 -4.2E+02 -4.2E+02 -4.2E+02 -4.2E+02
Std 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.0E-02 0.0E+00 3.7E+00 1.6E+02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00
Table 13: Evaluation of CLO and its comparison with other algorithms on multi-modal fixed dimension
benchmark functions
Med 1.6E+02 1.8E+02 1.3E+02 2.5E+02 1.7E+02 1.3E-05 2.6E+02 4.4E+02 2.8E+02 1.3E+02 1.5E+02 2.3E+02 3.9E+00
F61 Mean 1.6E+02 1.8E+02 1.3E+02 2.5E+02 1.8E+02 9.2E-01 2.6E+02 4.8E+02 2.8E+02 1.4E+02 1.5E+02 2.3E+02 3.9E+00
Med 1.1E+02 0.0E+00 4.3E+01 1.1E+01 2.1E+01 9.9E-01 0.0E+00 1.5E+01 2.5E-04 1.6E+02 9.7E+01 1.7E+02 0.0E+00
F62 Mean 1.1E+02 0.0E+00 4.8E+01 1.2E+01 2.3E+01 8.3E-01 1.2E+01 1.5E+01 7.1E+00 1.6E+02 1.0E+02 1.7E+02 0.0E+00
Std 3.7E+01 0.0E+00 1.6E+01 8.9E+00 7.6E+00 7.0E-01 4.6E+01 2.9E+00 1.8E+01 3.3E+01 2.5E+01 4.1E+01 0.0E+00
Med 5.1E+00 9.0E-01 1.0E+00 6.8E+00 1.4E+00 1.1E+00 8.0E+00 1.5E+00 5.1E+00 4.3E+00 1.0E+00 5.0E+00 1.0E+00
F63 Mean 5.1E+00 9.0E-01 1.0E+00 6.8E+00 1.7E+00 1.1E+00 7.9E+00 1.4E+00 4.7E+00 4.4E+00 1.0E+00 5.0E+00 1.0E+00
Std 1.2E+00 4.5E-16 4.0E-07 3.8E-01 6.4E-01 4.7E-02 6.9E-01 7.6E-02 2.0E+00 9.5E-01 1.8E-04 9.7E-01 2.6E-15
Med 2.1E+02 1.2E+03 6.1E-04 7.0E-23 1.6E+06 2.8E-12 2.0E+03 1.4E+01 4.8E+03 1.9E-13 1.1E+02 6.7E+07 1.1E-25
F64 Mean 2.6E+02 1.5E+03 1.4E-03 1.6E-20 5.6E+06 9.8E-03 2.0E+03 1.4E+01 4.7E+03 4.2E+09 1.2E+02 9.1E+07 7.5E-25
Std 2.3E+02 7.5E+02 3.1E-03 6.4E-20 9.1E+06 4.8E-02 2.7E+02 3.9E+00 5.6E+02 1.6E+10 5.2E+01 8.7E+07 2.0E-24
Med 1.3E-03 1.6E-71 3.8E-03 4.0E-27 7.0E-01 6.2E-29 9.5E-06 2.5E-01 3.6E-11 1.6E+06 2.1E-02 6.8E-01 1.5E-78
F65 Mean 3.2E-03 4.7E-23 2.9E-02 2.5E-21 2.0E+00 1.4E-24 2.5E-05 5.5E+00 2.7E-03 1.2E+08 6.4E-02 2.6E+03 4.8E-55
Std 5.4E-03 2.6E-22 4.7E-02 1.4E-20 3.7E+00 7.6E-24 3.7E-05 2.2E+01 1.5E-02 3.0E+08 1.0E-01 9.9E+03 2.2E-54
Med 1.0E-06 -8.9E-16 3.3E+00 2.7E-15 9.7E+00 6.2E-15 1.6E-10 9.9E-05 1.4E+01 1.9E+01 6.9E-02 8.6E+00 2.7E-15
F66 Mean 1.1E-06 -7.7E-16 3.5E+00 2.7E-15 9.7E+00 7.2E-15 1.6E-10 1.0E-04 1.2E+01 1.5E+01 3.8E-01 8.5E+00 2.2E-15
Std 5.9E-07 6.5E-16 1.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.4E+00 2.5E-15 1.7E-11 3.1E-05 8.7E+00 7.2E+00 6.7E-01 1.3E+00 6.5E-16
Std 1.4E+01 1.5E+01 4.1E+01 8.7E-01 6.7E+03 7.1E-17 7.8E+00 2.6E-04 1.0E+01 1.2E+05 3.1E+01 1.4E+04 2.0E+00
Med 4.0E-01 0.0E+00 1.3E+00 1.0E-01 3.7E+00 2.0E-01 3.0E-01 4.0E-01 1.5E-01 4.3E+00 5.0E-01 4.4E+00 1.0E-01
F68 Mean 3.7E-01 1.9E-51 1.4E+00 1.1E-01 3.9E+00 2.0E-01 3.1E-01 4.3E-01 1.5E-01 6.2E+00 5.3E-01 4.4E+00 1.1E-01
Std 5.1E-02 1.1E-50 2.8E-01 3.4E-02 9.5E-01 5.1E-03 9.0E-03 6.3E-02 5.1E-02 4.1E+00 8.4E-02 9.8E-01 4.1E-02
Std 4.0E+01 5.0E+01 2.7E+01 3.7E+01 3.4E+01 6.0E-14 NaN 5.7E+01 4.0E+01 3.3E+01 4.0E+01 3.3E+01 3.5E-13
Med 1.1E-11 0.0E+00 1.2E-02 0.0E+00 6.8E-01 0.0E+00 3.0E-14 6.4E-07 9.0E-12 1.5E-02 1.4E-02 1.3E+00 0.0E+00
F70
CLO 21
Mean 1.6E-03 0.0E+00 1.4E-02 0.0E+00 6.3E-01 0.0E+00 3.5E-14 1.0E-05 8.0E-03 7.6E-01 2.0E-02 1.3E+00 0.0E+00
Std 3.8E-03 0.0E+00 2.3E-02 0.0E+00 3.3E-01 0.0E+00 2.5E-14 2.7E-05 3.9E-02 1.4E+00 1.6E-02 1.3E-01 0.0E+00
Med 1.5E-15 -1.0E+00 2.1E-19 3.6E-35 3.6E-13 5.1E-23 5.6E-12 1.1E-13 1.2E-10 3.3E-13 1.7E-16 2.1E-12 2.7E-40
F71 Mean 3.9E-14 -1.0E+00 2.9E-19 8.9E-21 3.9E-13 2.1E-16 5.9E-12 1.2E-13 1.6E-10 1.6E-12 1.9E-16 3.6E-12 1.5E-39
Med 1.1E-04 2.0E+00 1.1E-02 1.4E-26 3.8E+01 3.1E-31 2.7E+00 2.3E-08 2.2E+00 1.1E-02 1.5E-02 4.3E+03 2.4E-28
F73 Mean 2.4E-03 2.0E+00 1.2E-01 1.2E-02 1.1E+02 3.5E-30 2.7E+00 3.0E-08 2.2E+00 1.1E-01 2.0E-02 2.3E+04 2.9E-22
Std 6.2E-03 5.2E-01 3.0E-01 2.5E-02 3.0E+02 1.4E-29 2.4E-01 2.2E-08 1.8E-01 3.3E-01 2.3E-02 4.1E+04 1.6E-21
Med 1.1E-03 1.5E-01 4.1E-01 2.3E-29 4.1E+00 3.1E-32 5.3E-01 1.1E-08 4.5E-01 7.2E-16 3.8E-01 1.9E+01 5.9E-29
F74 Mean 9.6E-02 1.9E-01 5.6E-01 7.9E-29 4.9E+00 2.1E-31 5.1E-01 2.6E-08 4.7E-01 1.2E-01 6.8E-01 2.3E+01 1.4E-27
Std 3.9E-01 1.1E-01 5.8E-01 1.4E-28 2.9E+00 7.7E-31 1.7E-01 5.5E-08 1.1E-01 3.2E-01 7.5E-01 1.2E+01 6.9E-27
Std 1.7E+00 2.4E+00 1.9E+00 7.6E-01 1.8E+00 4.5E-01 NaN 8.5E-01 7.9E-01 2.5E+00 2.2E+00 1.6E+00 2.9E-01
F76 Mean 4.3E-02 1.7E-04 6.7E-02 1.5E-03 3.7E-01 8.2E-03 8.1E-04 1.4E-02 1.3E-02 2.0E+00 1.0E-02 2.6E-01 2.6E-03
Std 1.2E-02 2.6E-04 3.0E-02 5.3E-04 1.9E-01 2.4E-03 2.6E-04 3.2E-03 1.2E-02 3.9E+00 4.8E-03 1.3E-01 1.2E-03
Std 0.0E+00 5.3E-01 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 7.9E-01 0.0E+00 2.7E-01 2.1E+00 6.1E-01 3.2E+00 1.2E-12 5.7E-01 8.2E-17
Med -1.1E+00 -1.1E+00 -1.1E+00 -1.1E+00 -1.1E+00 -1.1E+00 NaN -7.6E-01 -1.1E+00 -1.1E+00 -1.1E+00 -1.0E+00 -1.1E+00
F79 Mean -1.1E+00 -1.1E+00 -1.1E+00 -1.1E+00 -1.1E+00 -1.1E+00 z 1 -7.0E-01 -1.1E+00 -1.1E+00 -1.1E+00 -9.7E-01 -1.1E+00
Std 2.3E-01 8.5E-01 4.4E-01 1.2E-01 2.9E-01 0.0E+00 NaN 4.0E-01 5.1E-01 7.7E-01 8.2E-01 8.2E-01 1.3E-02
Med 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.1E-27 0.0E+00 1.2E+01 0.0E+00 3.6E-01 0.0E+00 6.9E-06 4.2E-05 0.0E+00
F85 Mean 0.0E+00 9.3E+01 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 2.1E-27 0.0E+00 2.9E+01 1.9E-28 5.1E-01 0.0E+00 2.2E+02 4.7E+01 0.0E+00
Std 0.0E+00 3.5E+02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 5.5E+01 3.8E-28 5.1E-01 0.0E+00 5.6E+02 2.5E+02 0.0E+00
Med 1.8E-13 1.3E+01 6.1E-28 2.0E-28 1.5E-01 3.6E-15 1.2E+03 7.6E-15 2.1E+02 1.9E+02 9.4E+00 2.5E+02 2.1E-25
F86 Mean 4.6E-03 4.6E+02 1.9E+01 1.6E+01 2.1E+02 4.2E-04 1.3E+03 1.4E-01 1.9E+02 1.4E+02 1.9E+02 8.9E+02 2.6E-04
Std 1.5E-02 9.0E+02 6.4E+01 5.6E+01 4.6E+02 2.1E-03 5.8E+02 4.6E-01 6.8E+01 1.1E+02 4.4E+02 1.3E+03 1.4E-03
Table 14: Evaluation of CLO and its comparison with other algorithms on multi-modal variable dimen-
sion benchmark functions
22 CLO
Std 2.1E-05 1.7E+03 3.5E-14 8.5E-05 2.1E-14 2.7E-01 2.2E+03 2.9E+03 4.1E+02 1.4E+04 4.7E-03 8.1E+03 1.7E-13
Std 5.3E-01 1.6E+01 6.1E-02 5.3E-01 2.2E-01 1.5E+01 4.4E+02 7.3E-01 1.9E+01 3.4E+01 1.2E+01 4.5E+01 9.2E-01
Std 2.1E-06 1.2E+01 2.2E-01 0.0E+00 2.6E-07 7.0E+00 7.6E+00 4.9E-05 3.1E+00 4.1E+00 2.2E+00 1.8E+01 1.8E-04
Std 0.0E+00 1.2E+02 1.5E+00 0.0E+00 3.0E-14 7.0E+01 1.6E+02 1.4E-01 3.4E+01 2.7E+02 5.3E-01 6.8E+02 0.0E+00
Std 1.0E+01 1.8E+01 1.8E+01 9.4E-01 6.5E+00 1.7E+01 1.6E+01 2.9E+00 9.2E+00 5.7E+01 5.3E+01 6.9E+01 2.4E+01
Std 6.8E+00 6.5E+01 1.3E+01 5.7E-02 6.8E+00 6.6E+01 4.8E+01 5.8E-01 1.5E+01 6.5E+01 5.8E+01 8.8E+01 7.8E+00
Std 1.1E+01 2.5E+01 2.6E+00 1.7E+01 3.3E-01 2.3E+01 2.6E+01 2.4E+01 3.0E+01 8.4E+01 1.2E+02 4.6E+02 3.3E+00
Table 15: Evaluation of CLO and its comparison with other algorithms on CEC-BC-2017 benchmark
functions
23
Fig. 10: Design of Tension spring design problem

[63]
Fig. 9: Design of Welded beam problem
6 Classical engineering
problems
Mechanical engineering problems are constraint
functions that differentiate between feasible and
infeasible solutions depending upon the con-
straints imposed on the decision variables. Penalty
functions, special operators, repair algorithms, Fig. 11: Design of Speed reducer design problem
and hybrid methods are a few of the ways [63]
to handle these constraints. We have used the
penalty function in which whenever the con-
straint is violated penalty of 1e+16 is added GNDO and CLO occupy the first position with a
to the cost. Three mechanical engineering prob- mean value of 0.012665.
lems Welded beam problem, Tension-Compression
String Design Problem, and Speed reducer prob-
lem are used to verify the efficiency of CLO on 6.3 Speed reducer problem
real-world problems. The performance comparison Speed reducer problem [77] is a probabilistic
of CLO with other algorithms is given in Table 16. weight reduction problem with ten constraints and
seven design variables (X1 − X7 ). The design is
6.1 Welded beam problem given in Figure 11. The results depicts DMO,
FDA, GDNO, HBO, TLSBO, SSA1, and CLO all
Welded beam problem [77] is a cost minimiza-
performed the best.
tion problem with five constraints and four design
variables [welding depth (X1 ) , welding length
(X2 ), beam height (X3 ) and beam thickness (X4 )]. 7 Conclusion
The design is given in Figure 9. Table 16 shows
that DMO gives the best result for Welded beam This paper proposes a novel human-based meta-
problem with the mean value of 1.728 while CLO heuristic called Imitation-based Cognitive Learn-
occupies the second position with 1.729. ing Optimizer (CLO) which is based on human
cognitive and social learning during the human
6.2 Tension-Compression String life span. The behavior, interactions, and depen-
dencies of a person during the different life
Design Problem
stages are prudently investigated and mathemat-
Tension-Compression String Design Problem [77] ical equations are devised to maintain a balance
is a spring weight reduction problem with three between the process of exploration and exploita-
design variables (X1 − X3 ). The design is given in tion. The equations are designed to have more
Figure 10. According to the results in Table 16 , exploration at the start of the algorithm and as
Engineering Problem Stats DMO DOA FDA GNDO HBO TLSBO BOA SSA1 SCA MFO MVO DA CLO
Med 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 1.7E+00 1.8E+00 1.7E+00 NaN 1.7E+00 1.8E+00 1.8E+00 1.7E+00 1.8E+00 1.7E+00
Welded beam problem Mean 1.7E+00 1.9E+00 1.8E+00 1.7E+00 1.8E+00 1.7E+00 z1 1.7E+00 1.8E+00 1.9E+00 1.7E+00 2.0E+00 1.7E+00
Spring design Mean 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 7.8E+12 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 1.4E-02 1.7E-02 1.7E-02 1.3E-02
Med 2.99E+03 2.99E+03 2.99E+03 2.99E+03 2.99E+03 2.99E+03 NaN 2.68E+03 3.10E+03 2.99E+03 3.03E+03 3.05E+03 2.99E+03
Speed reducer problem Mean 2.99E+03 3.01E+03 2.99E+03 2.99E+03 2.99E+03 2.99E+03 z 1 2.99E+03 3.10E+03 3.00E+03 3.03E+03 3.18E+03 2.99E+03
Std 4.63E-13 3.54E+01 4.31E-13 2.35E-12 4.63E-13 4.63E-13 NaN 6.18E+01 2.44E+01 1.04E+01 1.09E+01 4.55E+02 2.39E-13
Table 16: Performance comparison of KLO with other algorithms on mechanical engineering problem.
it succeeds in finding the promising area, the pro- • Code availability (Code will be able online
cess is shifted towards the exploitation of the after publication)
search area. The local best and global best are • Authors’ contributions
incorporated into the equation to further facili- (Sobia Tariq Javed: Conceptualization,
tate the convergence process. The mechanism is Methodology, Investigation, Validation,
proposed to overcome the trapping of an individ- Writing- Original draft preparation, Writing-
ual in local optima. The CLO is compared with Reviewing and Editing, Formal analysis,
12 state-of-the-art algorithms from the literature. Software, Resources, Visualization.
100 benchmark functions (including uni-modal Kashif Zafar: Conceptualization, Investi-
fixed dimension, uni-modal variable dimension, gation, Supervision, Writing- Reviewing and
multi-modal fixed dimension, multi-modal vari- Editing, Project administration, Resources
able dimension, and CEC-BC-2017 functions) and Irfan Younas: Conceptualization, Investi-
three real-world mechanical engineering problems gation, Supervision, Writing- Reviewing and
are used to validate the algorithm. The evalua- Editing, Project administration, Resources.)
tion results clearly depict the superiority of the
CLO algorithm over the other chosen algorithms.
This algorithm has drawn attention to human References
social learning evolution. Humans are considered
the best and the smartest creatures on earth. This [1] Ghasemian, H., Ghasemian, F., Vahdat-
implies that human-based algorithms will be supe- Nejad, H.: Human urbanization algorithm: A
rior to all the other biological/animal-based algo- novel metaheuristic approach. Math. Com-
rithms. The gradual learning process of humans put. Simul. 178, 1–15 (2020)
followed by frequent reinforcements makes it com-
parable to the search process of metaheuristics. [2] Zerovnik, J.: Heuristics for np-hard optimiza-
tion problems - simpler is better!? Logistics
& Sustainable Transport 6, 1–10 (2015)
Declarations [3] Chu, X., Gao, D., Chen, J., Cui, J., Cui, C.,
• Funding (Not Applicable) Xu, S., Qin, Q.: Adaptive differential search
• Conflict of interest/Competing interests (The algorithm with multi-strategies for global
optimization problems. Neural Computing
authors declare no conflict of interest relating
and Applications 31, 8423–8440 (2019)
to this work.)
• Ethics approval (Not Applicable)
[4] Doerr, B., Le, H., Makhmara, R., Nguyen,
• Consent to participate (Not Applicable)
T.D.: Fast genetic algorithms. Proceedings of
• Consent for publication (Not Applicable)
the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation
• Availability of data and materials (Not
Conference (2017)
Applicable)
[5] Pal, S., Wang, P.P.: Genetic algorithms
for pattern recognition. In: Genetic Algo-
1
z is a complex number rithms for Pattern Recognition, pp. 310–314
25
(2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/I-SMAC. [16] Kumar, N., Singh, N., Vidyarthi, D.P.: Arti-
2017.8058361 ficial lizard search optimization (also): a
novel nature-inspired meta-heuristic algo-
[6] Du, K.L., Swamy, M.: Search and Opti- rithm. Soft Comput. 25, 6179–6201 (2021)
mization by Metaheuristics: Techniques and
Algorithms Inspired by Nature. Springer, ??? [17] Agushaka, J.O., Ezugwu, A.E.-S., Abuali-
(2016) gah, L.M.: Dwarf mongoose optimization
algorithm. Computer Methods in Applied
[7] Ye, H., Zhang, T.: Mirror natural evolution Mechanics and Engineering (2022)
strategies. ArXiv abs/1910.11490 (2019)
[18] Trojovský, P., Dehghani, M.: Pelican opti-
[8] Zhao, T., Carleo, G., Stokes, J., Veerapa- mization algorithm: A novel nature-inspired
neni, S.: Natural evolution strategies and algorithm for engineering applications. Sen-
quantum approximate optimization. ArXiv sors (Basel, Switzerland) 22 (2022)
abs/2005.04447 (2020)
[19] Trojovská, E., Dehghani, M., Trojovský, P.:
[9] Nadimi-Shahraki, M.-H., Zamani, H.: Zebra optimization algorithm: A new bio-
Dmde: Diversity-maintained multi-trial inspired optimization algorithm for solving
vector differential evolution algorithm for optimization algorithm. IEEE Access 10,
non-decomposition large-scale global opti- 49445–49473 (2022)
mization. Expert Syst. Appl. 198, 116895
(2022) [20] Flores, J., Lopez, R.H., Barrera, J.: Gravi-
tational interactions optimization. In: LION
[10] Poli, R., Kennedy, J., Blackwell, T.: Parti- (2011)
cle swarm optimization. Swarm Intelligence
1, 33–57 (2007) [21] Kaveh, A., Mahdavi, V.: Colliding bodies
optimization: A novel meta-heuristic method.
[11] Faramarzi, A., Heidarinejad, M., Mirjalili, S., Computers and Structures 139, 18–27 (2014)
Gandomi, A.: Marine predators algorithm: A
nature-inspired metaheuristic. Expert Syst. [22] Qais, M.H., Hasanien, H.M., Alghuwainem,
Appl. 152, 113377 (2020) S.M.: Transient search optimization: a
new meta-heuristic optimization algorithm.
[12] Gurrola-Ramos, J., Aguirre, A.H., Cedeño, Applied Intelligence, 1–16 (2020)
O.D.: Colshade for real-world single-objective
constrained optimization problems. 2020 [23] Kaveh, A.: Ray optimization algorithm.
IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computa- Advances in Metaheuristic Algorithms for
tion (CEC), 1–8 (2020) Optimal Design of Structures (2021)
[13] Okwu, M., Tartibu, L.: Whale optimiza- [24] Zahmani, M.H.: An adaptation of the galaxy-
tion algorithm. In: Metaheuristic Optimiza- based search algorithm for solving the single
tion: Nature-Inspired Algorithms Swarm machine total weighted tardiness problem.
and Computational Intelligence, Theory and Int. J. Manuf. Res. 16, 399–413 (2021)
Applications (2021)
[25] Daliri, A., Asghari, A., Azgomi, H.,
[14] Balani, A.M., Nayeri, M.D., Azar, A., Yazdi, Alimoradi, M.: The water optimization
M.R.T.: Golden eagle optimizer: A nature- algorithm: a novel metaheuristic for solving
inspired metaheuristic algorithm. Comput. optimization problems. Applied Intelligence
Ind. Eng. 152, 107050 (2021) (2022)
[15] Naruei, I., Keynia, F.: A new optimization [26] Rao, R., Savsani, V., Vakharia, D.: Teaching-
method based on coot bird natural life model. learning-based optimization: A novel method
Expert Syst. Appl. 183, 115352 (2021)
for constrained mechanical design optimiza- 1806947–1180694719 (2018)

tion problems. Comput. Aided Des. 43, 303–
315 (2011) [36] Kumar, M., Kulkarni, A.J., Satapathy, S.:
Socio evolution & learning optimization algo-
[27] Rao, R., Patel, V.: An elitist teaching- rithm: A socio-inspired optimization method-
learning-based optimization algorithm for ology. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 81, 252–
solving complex constrained optimization 272 (2018)
problems. International Journal of Indus-
trial Engineering Computations 3, 535–560 [37] Bodaghi, M., Samieefar, K.: Meta-heuristic
(2012) bus transportation algorithm. Iran Journal of
Computer Science 2, 23–32 (2019)
[28] Ramezani, F., Lotfi, S.: Social-based algo-
rithm (sba). Appl. Soft Comput. 13, 2837– [38] Balochian, S., Baloochian, H.: Social mimic
2856 (2013) optimization algorithm and engineering
applications. Expert Syst. Appl. 134,
[29] Wang, L., Ni, H., Yang, R., Fei, M., Ye, 178–191 (2019)
W.: A simple human learning optimization
algorithm. (2014) [39] Shastri, A.S., Jagetia, A., Sehgal, A., Patel,
M., Kulkarni, A.J.: Expectation algorithm
[30] Zou, F., Wang, L., Hei, X., Chen, D.: (exa): A socio-inspired optimization method-
Teaching-learning-based optimization with ology. In: Socio-cultural Inspired Metaheuris-
learning experience of other learners and its tics (2019)
application. Appl. Soft Comput. 37, 725–736
(2015) [40] Salih, S.Q., Alsewari, A.A.: A new algorithm
for normal and large scale optimization prob-
[31] Liu, Z.Z., Chu, D.H., Song, C., Xue, X., lems nomadic people optimizer. Neural Com-
Lu, B.Y.: Social learning optimization (slo) puting and Applications 32, 10359–10386
algorithm paradigm and its application in (2019)
qos-aware cloud service composition. Inf. Sci.
326, 315–333 (2016) [41] Kashan, A.H., Moghaddam, R.T., Gen, M.:
Find-fix-finish-exploit-analyze (f3ea) meta-
[32] Satapathy, S., Naik, A.: Social group opti- heuristic algorithm: An effective algorithm
mization (sgo): a new population evolution- with new evolutionary operators for global
ary optimization technique. Complex and optimization. Comput. Ind. Eng. 128, 192–
Intelligent Systems 2, 173–203 (2016) 218 (2019)
[33] Ahmadi, S.-A.: Human behavior-based opti- [42] Moosavi, S.H.S., Bardsiri, V.K.: Poor and
mization: a novel metaheuristic approach to rich optimization algorithm: A new human-
solve complex optimization problems. Neu- based and multi populations algorithm. Eng.
ral Computing and Applications 28, 233–244 Appl. Artif. Intell. 86, 165–181 (2019)
(2017)
[43] Shukla, A., Singh, P., Vardhan, M.: An adap-
[34] Kommadath, R., Kotecha, P.: Teaching learn- tive inertia weight teaching-learning-based
ing based optimization with focused learning optimization algorithm and its applications.
and its performance on cec2017 functions. Applied Mathematical Modelling 77, 309–
2017 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Com- 326 (2020)
putation (CEC), 2397–2403 (2017)
[44] Al-Betar, M.A., Alyasseri, Z.A.A., Awadal-
[35] Chen, X., Xu, B., Yu, K., Du, W.: Teaching- lah, M.A., Doush, I.A.: Coronavirus herd
learning-based optimization with learning immunity optimizer (chio). Neural Comput-
enthusiasm mechanism and its application in ing & Applications 33, 5011–5042 (2021)
chemical engineering. J. Appl. Math. 2018,
27
[45] Dehghani, M.J., Mardaneh, M., Guerrero, [54] Wu, D., Wang, S., Liu, Q., Abualigah, L.M.,
J.M., Malik, O.P., Ramı́rez-Mendoza, R.A., Jia, H.: An improved teaching-learning-based
Matas, J., Vasquez, J.C., Parra-Arroyo, L.: A optimization algorithm with reinforcement
new “doctor and patient” optimization algo- learning strategy for solving optimization
rithm: An application to energy commitment problems. Computational Intelligence and
problem. Applied Sciences 10, 5791 (2020) Neuroscience 2022 (2022)
[46] Abdel-Basset, M., Mohamed, R., [55] Dehghani, M., Trojovská, E., Trojovský, P.:
Chakrabortty, R.K., Sallam, K.M., Ryan, A new human-based metaheuristic algorithm
M.: An efficient teaching-learning-based for solving optimization problems on the base
optimization algorithm for parameters iden- of simulation of driving training process 12
tification of photovoltaic models: Analysis (2022)
and validations. Energy Conversion and
Management 227, 113614 (2021) [56] Berk, L.E.: In: Development Through the
Lifespan (1997)
[47] Salehan, A., Deldari, A.: Corona virus opti-
mization (cvo): a novel optimization algo- [57] Clements, D.: Transforming the Workforce
rithm inspired from the corona virus pan- for Children Birth Through Age 8: A Uni-
demic. The Journal of Supercomputing, 1–32 fying Foundation. The National Academies
(2021) Press, ??? (2015)
[48] Du, J., Wang, L., Fei, M.: A human learning [58] Erikson, E.: In: Childhood and Society
optimization algorithm with link prediction (1950)
strategy. 2021 40th Chinese Control Confer-
ence (CCC), 1614–1619 (2021) [59] Erikson, E.: Young man luther: A study in
psychoanalysis and history. (1993)
[49] Akbari, E., Ghasemi, M., Gil, M., Rahimne-
jad, A., Gadsden, S.A.: Optimal power flow [60] Erikson, E.: Youth : change and challenge.
via teaching-learning-studying-based opti- (1963)
mization algorithm. Electric Power Compo-
[61] Frankel, F.H., Erikson, E.: Insight and
nents and Systems 49, 584–601 (2021)
responsibility. (1964)
[50] Emami, H.: Stock exchange trading optimiza-
[62] Erikson, E., Erikson, J.M.: The life cycle
tion algorithm: a human-inspired method for
completed. (1982)
global optimization. The Journal of Super-
computing, 1–50 (2022) [63] Javed, S.T., Zafar, K., Younas, I.: Kids
Learning Optimizer: Social Evolution and
[51] Emami, H.: Anti-coronavirus optimization
Cognitive Learning Based Optimization
algorithm. Soft Computing 26, 4991–5023
Algorithm. unpublished (2022)
(2022)
[64] Askari, Q., Saeed, M., Younas, I.: Heap-based
[52] Zhang, P., Wang, L., Du, J., Fei, Z., Ye, S.,
optimizer inspired by corporate rank hier-
Fei, M., Pardalos, P.M.: Differential human
archy for global optimization. Expert Syst.
learning optimization algorithm. Computa-
Appl. 161, 113702 (2020)
tional Intelligence and Neuroscience 2022
(2022) [65] Peraza-Vázquez, H., Peña-Delgado, A.F.,
Echavarrı́a-Castillo, G., Morales-Cepeda,
[53] Xu, Y., Peng, Y., Su, X., Yang, Z., Ding, C.,
A.B., Velasco-Álvarez, J., Ruiz-Perez, F.: A
Yang, X.: Improving teaching-learning-based-
bio-inspired method for engineering design
optimization algorithm by a distance-fitness
optimization inspired by dingoes hunt-
learning strategy. Knowledge-Based Systems
ing strategies. Mathematical Problems in
(2022)
Engineering (2021) implicit in the analysis of variance. Journal of

the American Statistical Association 34, 109
[66] Karami, H., Anaraki, M.V., Farzin, S., Mir- (1939)
jalili, S.M.: Flow direction algorithm (fda): A
novel optimization approach for solving opti- [76] Friedman, M.: A comparison of alternative
mization problems. Comput. Ind. Eng. 156, tests of significance for the problem of m
107224 (2021) rankings. Annals of Mathematical Statistics
11, 86–92 (1940)
[67] Zhang, Y., Jin, Z., Mirjalili, S.: General-
ized normal distribution optimization and [77] Kumari, C.L., Kamboj, V.K., Bath, S.K.,
its applications in parameter extraction of Tripathi, S.L., Khatri, M., Sehgal, S.: A
photovoltaic models. Energy Conversion and boosted chimp optimizer for numerical and
Management 224, 113301 (2020) engineering design optimization challenges.
Engineering with Computers, 1–52 (2022)
[68] Arora, S., Singh, S.: Butterfly optimiza-
tion algorithm: a novel approach for global
optimization. Soft Computing 23, 715–734
(2019)
[69] Mirjalili, S.M., Gandomi, A.H., Mirjalili,

S.Z., Saremi, S., Faris, H., Mirjalili, S.M.:
Salp swarm algorithm: A bio-inspired opti-
mizer for engineering design problems. Adv.
Eng. Softw. 114, 163–191 (2017)
[70] Mirjalili, S.M.: Sca: A sine cosine algorithm

for solving optimization problems. Knowl.
Based Syst. 96, 120–133 (2016)
[71] Mirjalili, S.M.: Moth-flame optimization

algorithm: A novel nature-inspired heuristic
paradigm. Knowl. Based Syst. 89, 228–249
(2015)
[72] Mirjalili, S.M., Mirjalili, S.M., Hatamlou, A.:

Multi-verse optimizer: a nature-inspired algo-
rithm for global optimization. Neural Com-
puting and Applications 27, 495–513 (2015)
[73] Mirjalili, S.M.: Dragonfly algorithm: a new

meta-heuristic optimization technique for
solving single-objective, discrete, and multi-
objective problems. Neural Computing and
Applications 27, 1053–1073 (2015)
[74] Friedman, M.: The use of ranks to avoid

the assumption of normality implicit in the
analysis of variance. Journal of the American
Statistical Association 32, 675–701 (1937)
[75] Friedman, M.: A correction: The use of

ranks to avoid the assumption of normality

Imitation Based Cognitive Learning Optimizer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Imitation Based Cognitive Learning Optimizer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Springer Nature 2021 LATEX template

Imitation-based Cognitive Learning Optimizer for solving

*Corresponding author(s). E-mail(s): sobia.tariq@nu.edu.pk;

Keywords: Optimization, Socio-inspired algorithm, Metaheuristics, Imitation based algorithm, Cognitive

1 Introduction diverse nature of each optimization problem. A

better aristocratic society. The cognitive abil- 2 Literature Review

CLO is based on the learning behavior of humans Minimize

Algorithm Inspiration Year

Teaching Learning-Based Optimization (TLBO) [26] Influence of teachers on learners. 2011

Table 1: Literature review summary of Social interaction-based algorithms (SA).

Erickson’s Stages Duration Merged Stages

Fig. 1: Human behavior based metaheuristic algorithms

Fig. 2: Semantic representation of CLO.

Fig. 3: Stages of Human Life.

Fig. 4: Flowchart of CLO.

Algorithm 1 Initialization Self-learning

Algorithm 3 Stage 1: Newborn to Infant

80% probability and from other parents with 20

Algorithm 6 Stage 3: Start of professional life

Algorithm 7 Stage 4: Adulthood to old age 3.3 Complexity analysis

Sub-module Time complexity Description

Initialization O(ND) N individuals with D dimensions

Fitness evaluation O(DCobj ) Cobj is the cost of the objective function

Update γ (Gamma) O(1) Only γ is updated

Update Parents O(nParents x D) Only parents with D dimensions are updated

Stage 1 O(nKids x D) Only kids with D dimensions are updated

Stage 2 O(nKids x D) Only kids with D dimensions are updated

Stage 1 + Update Parents O(N x D) N = nPop = nParents + nKids

Stage 2 + Update Parents O(N x D) N = nPop = nParents + nKids

Stage 3 O(N x D) Whole population is updated

Stage 4 O(N x D) Whole population is updated

Crucial time O(N x D) Whole population is updated

Update Parameters O(1) Only few variables are updated

Multi-modal functions (Shifted and Rotated) F1 Beale 2 [−4.5,4.5] 0

Composite functions (N=3)

F.no. Name Var Range fmin

F.no. Name Var Range fmin F61 Schwefel’s 2.26 30 [–500,500] 0

Sr. Algorithms Parameter Setting Year

Fig. 10: Design of Tension spring design problem

Fig. 9: Design of Welded beam problem

for constrained mechanical design optimiza- 1806947–1180694719 (2018)

Engineering (2021) implicit in the analysis of variance. Journal of

[69] Mirjalili, S.M., Gandomi, A.H., Mirjalili,

[70] Mirjalili, S.M.: Sca: A sine cosine algorithm

[71] Mirjalili, S.M.: Moth-flame optimization

[72] Mirjalili, S.M., Mirjalili, S.M., Hatamlou, A.:

[73] Mirjalili, S.M.: Dragonfly algorithm: a new

[74] Friedman, M.: The use of ranks to avoid

[75] Friedman, M.: A correction: The use of

You might also like