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

net/publication/361805217

Hybrid binary whale with harris hawks for feature selection

Article  in  Neural Computing and Applications · July 2022

DOI: 10.1007/s00521-022-07522-9

CITATIONS READS

9 325

7 authors, including:

Ranya Wajih Said Jadid Abdulkadir

Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
3 PUBLICATIONS   59 CITATIONS    94 PUBLICATIONS   1,508 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Qasem Al-Tashi
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
39 PUBLICATIONS   1,039 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Metaheuristic Algorithms View project

Wrapper Multi-objective Feature Selection View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Said Jadid Abdulkadir on 08 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Neural Computing and Applications
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-022-07522-9 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().
,- volV)

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Hybrid binary whale with harris hawks for feature selection

Ranya Alwajih1 • Said Jadid Abdulkadir1 • Hitham Al Hussian1 • Norshakirah Aziz1 • Qasem Al-Tashi2,3 •

Seyedali Mirjalili4,5 • Alawi Alqushaibi1

Received: 4 October 2021 / Accepted: 7 June 2022

Ó The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
A tremendous flow of big data has come from the growing use of digital technology and intelligent systems. This has
resulted in an increase in not just the dimensional issues that big data encounters, but also the number of challenges that big
data faces, including redundancies and useless features. As a result, feature selection is offered as a method for eliminating
unwanted characteristics. This study introduces the BWOAHHO memetic technique, which combines the binary hybrid
Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA) with Harris Hawks Optimization (HHO). A transfer function to transfer continuous
characteristics to binary to fulfill the feature selection nature condition. The efficiency of the selected attributes is assessed
using a wrapper k-Nearest neighbor (KNN) Classifier. About 18 benchmark datasets obtained from UCI repository were
utilized to measure the proposed method’s proficiency. The performance of the novel hybrid technique was evaluated by
comparing to that of WOA, HHO, Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), the Genetic Algorithm (GA), and the WOASAT-2.
With the new hybrid feature selection method, the WOA algorithm’s efficiency was improved. Classification accuracy,
average fitness, average selected attributes, and computational time were all used as performance indicators. In terms of
accuracy, the proposed BWOHHO algorithm compared with 5 similar metaheuristic algorithms. The BWOAHHO had a
classification accuracy of 92% in the 18 datasets, which was higher than BWOA (90%), BPSO (82%), and BGA (82%).
(83%), the fitness measures of the BWOHHO algorithm are 0.08, which is lower than the average fitness of BWOA, BPSO,
and BGA., in terms of selected attribute size compare the proposed BWOAHHO algorithm to the results obtained by the
other five techniques The average selected feature sizes for BWOAHHO, BWOA, BHHO, BGA, and WOASAT-2 were
18.07, 20.12, 22.3, 22.32, 22.40, and 15.99, respectively, and computing time for the proposed BWOHHO was 7.36 in
second which was the lowest computed value. To determine the significance of BWOAHHO, a statistical one-way
ANOVA test was used. When compared to existing algorithms, the proposed approach produced better results.

Keywords Machine learning  Classification  Feature (variable) selection  Whale optimization algorithm 
Hybrid feature algorithm  Harris hawks optimization

& Said Jadid Abdulkadir 1 Introduction

Saidjadid.a@utp.edu.my
1
In today’s era of machine learning, variable selection, is an
Centre for Research in Data Science (CeRDaS), Computer essential pre-processing step. Noise or irrelevant data,
Information Science Department, Universiti Teknologi
PETRONAS, SeriIskandar, Perak, Malaysia which can damage system acacuracy, is commonly asso-
2 ciated with the large expansion in the scale of gathered data
Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD
Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA and the enormous volume of information [1, 2]. Feature
3 selection is a strategy for removing redundant and irrele-
Faculty of Administrative and Computer Sciences, University
of Albaydha, Albaydha, Yemen vant features that is frequently utilized in many domains.
4 Feature selection is essentially the key to determining
Centre for Artificial Intelligence Research and Optimization,
Torrens University Australia, Fortitude Valley, QLD 4006, feature subsets from the source datasets [3]. The curse of
Australia dimensionality, as described by Bellman in [4], The fun-
5
Yonsei Frontier Lab., Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of damental issue with feature selection is that the quantity of
Korea characteristics increases system inaccuracy, where the

123

quantity of attributes in a search space with n features is 2n
[1, 5]. TAs a consequence, in order to increase system
accuracy and relevance, there is a great need to limit the
quantity of redundant attributes. To locate the represent
features, attribute selection models go through four major
stages [6]. Feature selection process begin with generating
subsets using searching algorithms, then evaluating the
produced attributes until the stopping requirement is met,
finally, validate the selected features.
Attribute selection search strategies have changed over
time to achieve the optimal results. In the literature, con-
ventional search methods such as sequential search (SFS)
and (SBS) were very popular in the past [6]. Layering,
stagnation in local optima, and expensive computing are
the shortcomings of such approaches [1]. To avoid the
nesting effect of the prior approaches, floating search,
sequential forward/backward floating search (SFFS) and
(SBFS) were proposed [7]. Nonetheless, as the search field
expands, floating search techniques have a tendency to
miss the best solutions [8].
The evolution of feature selection led towards a more
complex search algorithms known as metaheuristic
Approaches. For instance, there’s many efforts made to
boost the effectiveness of Swarm Intelligence (SI) , and
Evolutionary Algorithms (EA) [7]. GA is an EA algorithm,
while the algorithms that inspired from swarms’ behaviors
such as Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) [8], Grey Wolf
Optimizer (GWO) [9, 10], HHO [7], Ant Lion Optimiza-
tion (ALO) [11], and WOA [12] are gathered under SI
category.
WOA [12] is a recently developed optimization method
by Mirjalili and Lewis, which was stimulated by the
behavior of humpback whale hunting strategies. To sur-
vive, humpback whales pursue and feed on small schools
of fish or krill near the surface. They use unique maneuvers
to immobilize their victim, including as swimming in a
circle or spiraling around them. This is known as a bubble-
net attack. The humpback whale hunts in two stages:
exploration and exploitation. The exploration interval
begins when the whales are randomly searching for prey
until the certain point the whales start exploiting the search
space by performing bubble-net hunting.
HHO [7, 13] was designed to mimic the hunting style of
Harris hawks. The HHO exploration phase begins with the
hawk setting a value to identify the perching site and then
observing the target. The hawks employed several diverse
hunting tactics depending on the victim’s energy and
capacity to flee when the exploitation phase began. Smooth
besiege, tough besiege, smooth besiege with gradual
speedy leap, and tough besiege with gradual speedy leap
are the four foremost search strategies in this algorithm.
Each new subset must be evaluated using an evaluation
function. Filter, wrapper, and embedded are evaluation
123
Neural Computing and Applications
methods [14]. In filter approaches, an independent criterion
is applied, and the evaluation of the subset goodness does
not depend on any classifier or learning algorithm. Due to
their simplicity, filter methods are used, and good results
have been reported for practical applications. However, the
performance of the selected features is neglected by filter
methods [15]. Wrapper techniques evaluate variable subset
performance using a black box. Wrapper methods tend to
yield better results, but the computing time required to
construct the feature subset is a major disadvantage [14]. In
an embedded approach, attribute selection and classifier
learning are combined. [1]. Among the known EC tech-
niques, only a few algorithms can accomplish embedded
feature selection [16, 17].
Despite the good results obtained by WOA, it has few
internal settings and a limited number of heuristics [12].
The proposed method is a combination between the WOA
and the HHO algorithms. Where exploration part is taken
from HHO, and the exploitation part is carried from WOA.
The proposed method aims to resolve this issue by
hybridizing the WOA and the HHO algorithms. The new
algorithm is called BWOHHO, where its exploration part is
taken from HHO, and the exploitation part is carried from
WOA. The decision to combine WOA and HHO algo-
rithms was primarily driven by WOA’s simplicity and
effectiveness, as well as HHO’s stochastic search. The
combination of these two heuristic methods is expected to
result in a simplified, functional hybrid algorithm.
The remaining content is arranged: Section 2 reviews
the recent studies of feature selection and a detail
description of both WOA and HHO. Section 3 clearly
describes the proposed memetic algorithm. The experi-
mental setup of this study is explained in Sect. 4, Sect. 5
shows the results of the proposed hybrid algorithm and
compares them to state-of-the-art approaches. Finally, Sect.
6 brings the paper to a conclusion.
2 Related work
In recent years, attraction in hybrid metaheuristics has
grown significantly between evolutionary computation
researchers. A common paradigm for integrating the ben-
efits of both methods while reducing their limitations is
hybridization of two algorithms. The integrated strategies
have been successful in resolving the defined problem and
combining these strategies can improve the results obtained
individually. We can improve the discovery and exploita-
tion of algorithms by combining algorithms [18]. Accord-
ing to Talbi [18], hybrid metaheuristics algorithms design
categorized into Low-level which a specific metaheuristic
function is altered by another metaheuristic, and High-level
which various metaheuristics are self-contained. In Low-
Neural Computing and Applications
level hybrid algorithms, there are two hybridization tech-
niques: Low-level (Rely and Teamwork) Hybrid (LRH),
(LTH). The LRH class of hybrid algorithm entails
embedding a particular metaheuristic within a single-so-
lution metaheuristic, whereas A metaheuristic is incorpo-
rated into a population-based metaheuristic in LTH hybrid.
HRH hybrid has sequential metaheuristics. Multiple self-
contained algorithms collaborate to find an optimal HTH
solution. This research uses the LTH paradigm to include
the HHO exploration stage in the WOA algorithm.
Some hybrid algorithms have succeeded in improving
the function selection than original algorithms [5]. The
very first time a hybrid metaheuristics method was used in
feature selection was in the year 2000. The very first time a
combination of metaheuristic search method was used in
selecting features was in the year 2000. [19], when a GA
algorithm with local search technique was developed to
control the search process. Another study on GA was
undertaken to enhance the algorithm’s search by merging
GA’s global search and the integrated regularization
approach’s local search this method named hybrid genetic
algorithm [20, 21] with wrapper-embedded feature
approach (HGAWE) [22]. In addition, several studies
conducted to hybridize PSO algorithm for feature selection.
For example, the hybrid PSO-SVM that intended to opti-
mize the categorization task’s accuracy in low-dimensional
dataset [23]. In contrast, the hybrid PSO method for high-
dimensional data combined the filter and wrapper approa-
ches to bring advantage of the best properties of both
methods, reducing computing time while increasing the
accuracy of the collected features proposed in [24]. In [25],
and PSO and GSA were combined to stabilize the algo-
rithm’s exploratory and exploitative characteristics. [26].
Similarly, WOA has been hybridized with other algo-
rithms to improve the algorithm’s capability. For instance,
the hybridization of the WOA with SA in order to obtain
efficient search areas and improve the algorithm’s
exploitation stage [27]. In [28], a wrapper GWO and WOA
Feature Selection method proposed, and it aimed to reduce
the immature convergence and the local optima stagnation.
Furthermore, the HWOAFPA method [29] is created by
combining the WOA with the flower pollination algorithm
(FPA). This hybrid method begins by running the WOA
algorithm, and then the population of WOA is changed
using the OBL during the process. Besides, a novel hybrid
filter-wrapper WOA model is proposed as a multi-objective
algorithm that optimizes both the filter and wrapper fitness
functions at the same time [30]. A hybrid WOA modified
with Lévy flight and differential evolution (WOA-LFDE)
was developed in another work to solve JSSP [31].
Recently, a variety of hybridization technique applied
on HHO algorithm such as hybrid Sine Cosine Algorithm
with Harris Hawks Optimization (SCHHO) [32], The main
objective of this study is to improve the dynamically
adjusting the search agents of exploitation to avoid local
optima. Moreover, in [33], a new hybrid technique com-
bines the HHO algorithm with the cuckoo search algorithm
(CS) and chaotic maps. The CS algorithm balances
between exploration and exploitation, while chaotic maps
update the control energy parameters to avoid a local
optimum [34]. Another study called HBGWOHHO pro-
posed to achieve a good balance while also improving the
performance of the native GWO algorithm. The perfor-
mance of the search algorithm will be improved by prop-
erly balancing exploration and exploitation [5]. For
tackling real-world optimization problems, an unique
hybrid optimization method (H-HHONM) is suggested,
which combines the Nelder-Mead local search technique
with the HHO [35]. The HMPA algorithm is a hybrid
optimization method that divides the search agent popu-
lation into many sub-populations to balance exploration
and exploitation capacities [36].
Despite major advances in attribute selection algo-
rithms, the No Free Lunch (NFL) theorem [37] in opti-
mization argues that there is no such thing as an ideal
technique for solving all sorts of problems and never will
be. Even with wrapper feature selection’s progress, better
solutions require more research and development. Fol-
lowing is a discussion of a hybrid wrapper-based method
for selecting features.
2.1 Whale optimization algorithm (WOA)
WOA [12] is a Population-metaheuristic algorithm that
modeled the hunting behavior of humpback whales. The
humpback whales pursue and feed on school of small fish
or krill near the surface to survive. They create unique
maneuvers to paralyze the prey by swimming around them
in a circle or a spiral shaped path. This method called
bubble-net attack. The hunting cycle of the humpback
whales is specified into two phases. The first phase is the
exploration stage when the whales are searching for the
prey randomly. The other phase is exploitation phase,
where the whales are performing the bubble-net hunting.
The WOA algorithm simulates the humpback whale
searching strategy considering that the current position is
near to the best solution then the other agents update their
location with the finest search agent’s position. The fol-
lowing equations can be used to model this behavior
mathematically:
 
! ! ! ! 
D ¼  C : X ðtÞ  X ðtÞ ð1Þ
! ! !
X ðt þ 1Þ ¼ X ðtÞ  A :D ð2Þ
!
where X indicate the best obtained solution’s position, t
123
 Neural Computing and Applications

represents the number of iterations, the constant parameters serving as candidate solutions [37]. The system simulates
! ! Harris’ hawks’ perching strategies in two scenarios. Harris’
A , and C represented in Eqs. (3) and (4) as:
! hawks will perch in a variety of random locations around
A ¼ 2! a :!
r ! a ð3Þ their group home area in the first scenario. In Eq. (8), q 
! 0.5 represents this circumstance. The other possibility is
C ¼ 2:! r ð4Þ
that Harris’ hawks will reside nearby other members of the
where ! r are random vector between [0,1] and the family and prey. For q \ 0.5, Eq. (8) represents the
parameter !a is a random vector used to control the con- modelling of that option.

vergence process and it is decreasing linearly from 2 to 0 Xrand ðtÞ  r1 jXrand ðtÞ  2r2 XðtÞj; q  0:5
Xðt þ 1Þ ¼
throughout iterations. The value of !a can be calculated ðXrabbit ðtÞ  Xm ðtÞÞ  r3 ðLB þ r4 ðUB  LBÞÞ; q\0:5
using Eq. (5): ð8Þ
2 !
!
a ¼2t ð5Þ where X 1 ðt þ 1Þ denotes the next hawk location, X rand ðtÞ
T is a hawk chosen at random from the existing population,
where t is the current iteration and T is the maximum X ðtÞ indicates the contemporary vector hawk loca-
! tion,r 1 ,r 2 ,r 3 ,r 4 , and q represent records chosen at random
number of iterations the vector A is used to indicate the
within (0,1),), X rabbit ðtÞ denotes the prey’s location, X m is
transition process between the exploratory and exploitative
! the existing population of hawks’ average computed posi-
behaviors. When the absolute value of A is higher than 1 tion. Lastly, the search space’s lower and upper borders are
the search agents tend to keep exploring the search space or marked by the letters UB and LB, respectively.
to exploit the solution if the jAj\ 1. During the optimization process (Exploitation stage),
In WOA algorithm, the exploitation phase can be one of the hawk pursues the prey that has been spotted earlier in
two methods, shrinking encircling method or spiral-shaped the phase. The HHO algorithm has four options for simu-
method. In the shrinking encircling mechanism can be lating Harris’ hawks’ various attacking techniques.
achieved by decreasing the value of a in Eq. (2). The spiral Assuming that r denotes the likelihood of prey fleeing, an
path mechanism updates the distance between the most efficacious survive is denoted by r\0.5, and a failed effort
!
effective search agent obtained up to this point ( X ) and a to escape is denoted by r C 0.5. Depending on the likeli-
search agent (X) then update a new position for the search hood of the prey fleeing (r), to capture the prey, the hawks
agent according to the following Eq. (6): will get one of two methods: soft besiege or hard besiege.
0 The HHO algorithm parameter E is being used to identify
X ðt þ 1Þ ¼ D :ebl :cosð2plÞ þ X  ðtÞ ð6Þ the type of assaulting besiege. If the prey is unlikely to flee
To indicate which exploitative behavior will be per- (r C 0.5), moderate besiege will be employed when |E| C
formed, a probability value of 0.5 will be set for both. This 0.5, and severe besiege will be used if |E| \ 0.5. The
process modelled as: moderate besiege is mathematically represented by Eq. (9)
 0 bl and (10), whereas the severe besiege is mathematically
! D :e :cosð2plÞ þ X  ðtÞ; p  0:5 described by Eq (11):
X ð t þ 1Þ ¼ ~  ðt Þ  ~ ð7Þ
X A:D; p\0:5
Xðt þ 1Þ ¼ DXðtÞ  EjJXrabbit ðtÞ  XðtÞj ð9Þ
where p presents an arbitrary probability value between DðtÞ ¼ Xrabbit ðtÞ  XðtÞ ð10Þ
[24].
Xðt þ 1Þ ¼ Xrabbit ðtÞ  EjDXðtÞj ð11Þ
2.2 Harris Hawks Optimization (HHO) where X ðt þ 1Þ denotes the difference between the prey’s
position and the most recent location, DX ðtÞ represents an
HHO is a population-based metaheuristic algorithm [9] arbitrary number within (0,1), and JX rabbit ðtÞ denotes the
inspired on Harris Hawks’ ‘‘Seven Kills’’ hunting strategy. escaping prey’s irregular bounce tendency during the
The task of hunting could take only a few seconds or evasion operation. Finally, the J value can vary at irregular
several hours, relying on the prey’s characteristics evasion intervals in each iterative process to replicate the charac-
techniques. Just like any other metaheuristics, the search teristic of prey movements.
procedure is divided into two sections in his algorithm: When the prey has a probability of effectively evasion r
exploration and exploitation. The process of perching and \ 0.5, light encircle with gradual speedy leap arises when
exploring is referred to as the exploration stage. The |E| C 0.5 Eqs. (12), (14), (15), and (16), while the rough
desired or ideal prey serves as the best candidate solution in encircle with gradual speedy leap occurs when |E| \ 0.5
each phase of the HHO algorithm, with Harris’ hawks Eqs. (13), (14), (15), and (16).

123
Neural Computing and Applications
Y ¼ X rabbit ðtÞ  EjJX rabbit ðtÞ  X ðtÞ ð12Þ
Y ¼ X rabbit ðtÞ  EjJX rabbit ðtÞ  X m ðtÞj ð13Þ
Z ¼ Y þ S  LFðDÞ ð14Þ
 which improves solution accuracy. The proposed
Y; if f ðYÞ\FðXðtÞÞ
X ð t þ 1Þ ¼ ð15Þ
Z; if f ðZÞ\FðXðtÞÞ
0   1b1
pb
ur Cð 1 þ b Þ  sin 2
LF ð xÞ ¼ 0:01  @   A vector A.
1 ;r ¼ b1
jvjb C 2 b2 2 Þ
1þb ð If |p|C 0.5, the whales will use the shrinking encircling
ð16Þ
where D indicates the problem’s size, S is an arbitrary
parameter denoted by the size 19D, LF represents levy
flight component, and it is deduced from Eq. (16), and Y
are Z utilized from Eqs. (12), (13). Whereas U and v are
randomly initialized parameters within (0,1), and b denotes
a standard parameter given a value of 1.5.
3 The hybrid algorithm (BWOAHHO)
The search space for feature selection is binary or, in other
words, has two boundaries: zero and one. The WOA
algorithm’s original search space is continuous. As a result,
the feature selection problem cannot be solved using native
WOA. An improved variety of the optimization technique
must be created (binary version). To update search agent
placements for the WOA algorithm on a binary search
region, the subsequent sigmoidal equation has been
included:
1 algorithm. The parameters r, r1 and r2 are scaling coeffi-
Sð x Þ ¼ ð17Þ
1 þ eð10ðx0:5ÞÞ
 generates random positions within feature selection
1; sigmoid X   r
Xbinary ðt þ 1Þ ¼ f ð xÞ ¼ ð18Þ
0; otherwise
where X binary ðt þ 1Þ, is a binary location update technique
sigmoidal equation SðxÞ characterized in Eq. (17). The
parameter r indicates a randomly selected number drawn
from a consistent distribution 2 ½0; 1
BWOA is a relatively new optimization technique which
produces competitive results in comparison to other
metaheuristic algorithms like PSO, FEP, GSA and DE [12].
However, the native BWOA algorithm function an operator
to control the search in the exploration phase [37]. In the
current study, the BWOA exploration phase will be
replaced by an improved one. This is a hybridization
between algorithms BWOA and HHO. In this case of
hybridization, the exploration phase from HHO is embed-
ded in the algorithm WOA to increase the randomness of
the optimum solution search. As a result, the given algo-
rithm’s exploration phase is based on HHO Eq. (12), while
the exploitation phase is based on BWOA employing
Eq. (2) or (6), depending on the humpback whale’s
exploitative manner. The created algorithm (BWOAHHO)
has a better chance of avoiding local optimal solutions,
hybridization method, shown in Fig. 1, was applied to
improve the BWOA search strategy. The variant model
(BWAOHHO) starts by setting the value of the coefficient
approach to update their whereabouts, as modeled in
Eq. (2). The exploration phase will begin when |p|\ 0.5
and |A|[ 1 are equal, and the search agents will use one of
two tactics. If we assume that each strategy has an equal
chance r. For the situation of r \ 5 in Eq. (19), as well as
the other Strategic Condition of r  0.5the search agent is
placed near the other group members, the position is ran-
domly chosen within the members range defined in
Eq. (19).

! X r ðtÞ  C jX r ðtÞ  2r 1 X ðtÞj; r  0:5
X ð t þ 1Þ ¼
ðX P ðtÞ  X m ðtÞÞ  CðLB þ r 2 ðUB  LBÞÞ; r\0:5
ð19Þ
!
C ¼ 2:! r3 ð20Þ
!
where X ðt þ 1Þ. is the next stage for locating the search
agents, X r ðtÞ represent the current population’s random
position for search agents, X P ðtÞ specifies the prey’s loca-
tion, X m ðtÞ reflects the search agents’ average position, C
denotes a stochastic factor derived from Eq. (20), r, r1, r2
are arbitrary coefficients 2[0–1]. To prevent local optima,
the value C shows a high level of unpredictability in the
cients that increase the randomness with which the method
boundaries.
Once |A|\ 1 is true the foraging agents must update their
positions according to the spiral-shaped method using
!
Eq. (6). Based on the absolute value of the operator A ,
!
since the value of A is a random parameter ranging
from - 2a to 2a, the search agents will switch between the
explorative and the exploitative behavior until the maxi-
mum number iterations is exceeded. Once jAj\1 that sit-
uation indicates that the superlative search applicant ‘‘best
solution’’ is found (exploitation), while if |Aj  1 that
indicates an arbitrary search applicant is selected to
investigate a new area. The |A| is intended by Eq. (21).
! !
jA j ¼ j2!a :!r 1  aj ð21Þ
where ! a is a value randomly selected and, over the iter-
ations, it drops linearly from 2 to 0.
123
 Neural Computing and Applications

Fig. 1 Scheme of the proposed

process of hybridization

123
Neural Computing and Applications

As in Algorithm 1, the pseudo-code of the hybrid where ER denotes the margin of error, Sf is the number of
BWOAHHO is obtained. features specified, and T f is the entire number of attributes,

The purpose of selected attributes is to limit the per- and = [0, 1] is a constant to manage accuracy [42].
centage of characteristics and error rates of classification
[35]. In other words, by removing unneeded and duplicated 3.1 BWOAHHO potential benefits
traits and preservation of only those of use the accuracy of
the classifications is improved [33]. The KNN classifier has The purpose of this research is to strengthen the exploring
been utilized because fitness function is easy to evaluate stage of WOA in order to improve Classification quality
[38, 39, 40]and [41]. The fitness function used has been and execution time reduction. It is expected that combining
conveyed in Eq (22). these two heuristic methods will result in a simplified,
functional hybrid algorithm.
jSf j
fitness ¼ aðERÞ þ ð1  aÞ ð22Þ
jTf j

123
 Neural Computing and Applications

3.1.1 Computational complexity The value of K is determined through observation and

The computational complexity of the BWOAHHO is built
around three key components: initialization, fitness evalu-
ation, and the population size updating process. Because
there are N search operators, the complexity of processing
in the initial stage is O (N). It entails determining the fittest
solution and revising the positions among all search engi-
nes as part of the update process. As a result, the updating
procedure is O (T x N) ? O (T x N x B), where B indicates
the limit of search and T denotes the total amount of
iterations. The new solution’s computing challenge
(BWOAHHO) is O (N x (T ? TD ? 1).
4 Results of experiment
4.1 Used datasets
The benchmark datasets used to implement the research
work BWOAHHO’s practicability are listed in Table 1.
These datasets were retrieved through UCI’s machine
learning library [43].
4.2 Measurement configurations
The best solutions were assessed using the K-nearest
neighbor (KNN) method with Euclidean distance and k = 5.
experimentation. The value of k = 5 was chosen for the
experiments, since it performed best across all datasets
[38, 44]. The K-fold cross-validation method was used to
partition the datasets into K segments [45]. One segment
assigned to be a test segment, whereas the rest (K-1) serve
as training segments [46].
Until the best solution is found, the segments of train
and test datasets have been rearranged and replicated at
random [45]. According to [47], the number of iterations
(T) and the size of the population (N) are two important
criteria that determine the applicability of a given method.
The variables k, N, UB, LB, and T have been speci-
fied according to the conventional parameter settings
specified in [37] and [44]. The parameters for the proposed
BWOAHHO algorithm are listed in Table 2. An Intel (R)
CoreTMi7-6700 machine with 3.4GHz CPU and 8GB
RAM was used to run the method. The results of the
original codes BWOA from [42] and BHHO from [43]
were compared after they were both run on the same sys-
tem. The BPSO [48], BGA [4], and WOASAT-2 algo-
rithms [33] were also compared to the BWOAHHO
algorithm. Accuracy of classification, average fitness,
optimal fitness, least fitness, the multitude of attributes that
have been selected, and the time required for computation
were used to analyze and compare the results.
4.3 Metrics of evaluation

To assess the efficiency of the created solutions, we used

Table 1 Datasets for benchmark testing
data analysis indicators such as mean accuracy, average
# Dataset Attributes number Instances number fitness, optimal fitness, least fitness, Average attribute size
1 Breastcancer 9 699
selected, and mean execution time.
2 BreastEW 30 569
4.3.1 Mean accuracy
3 CongressEW 16 434
4 Exactly 13 1000
The statistic measures the classification algorithm’s accu-
5 Exactly2 13 1000
racy in identifying the most valuable attributes. Equa-
6 HeartEW 13 270
tion (23) is used to calculate the average accuracy of the
7 IonosphereEW 34 351
algorithm after it has been performed M times:
8 KrvskpEW 36 3196
9 Lymphography 18 148
10 M-of-N 13 1000 Table 2 BWOAHHO measurement configuration
11 PenglungEW 325 73
Component Value
12 SonarEW 60 208
13 SpectEW 22 267 Size of the population (N) 10
14 Tic-tac-toe 9 958 Upper selection bound (UB) 1
15 Vote 16 300 Lower selection bound (LB) 0
16 WaveformEW 40 5000 The total iterations number (T) 100
17 WineEW 13 178 Multitude of recurring runs (M) 20
18 Zoo 16 101 Fitness factor value (a) 0.99

123
Neural Computing and Applications

Table 3 The proposed

# Dataset Accuracy Fitness Selected attributes Execution time
BWOAHHO yielded the
following results. Average (Av) Av. Std. Av. Std. Av. Std. Av. Std.
results and the standard
deviation (Std) algorithm are 1 Breastcancer 0.99 0.01 0.01 0.01 4.6 1.33 6.22 0.92
used to represent the data 2 BreastEW 0.99 0.01 0.03 0.05 18.1 3.78 5.18 0.72
3 CongressEW 0.98 0.01 0.02 0.01 5.3 2.68 5.04 1.45
4 Exactly 0.85 0.07 0.15 0.07 8.7 1.62 9.29 2.45
5 Exactly2 0.76 0.01 0.23 0.01 5 2.29 6.18 1.09
6 HeartEW 0.89 0.03 0.15 0.18 7.2 2.35 5.41 0.29
7 IonosphereEW 0.93 0.02 0.07 0.01 7.7 3.04 5.11 0.89
8 KrvskpEW 0.97 0.01 0.04 0.01 30.2 5.53 17.92 1.92
9 Lymphography 0.89 0.03 0.11 0.02 9.2 2.97 4.85 0.36
10 M-of-n 0.94 0.02 0.09 0.13 9.9 1.24 7.92 1.17
11 PenglungEW 0.96 0.03 0.04 0.03 123.3 43.64 6.73 1.72
12 SonarEW 0.93 0.03 0.07 0.03 25 10.83 8.68 3.34
13 SpectEW 0.91 0.02 0.10 0.02 8.7 1.88 5.01 0.24
14 Tic-tac-toe 0.85 0.01 0.14 0.03 6.8 0.87 6.61 0.46
15 Vote 0.97 0.01 0.02 0.01 5.1 3.78 5.11 0.60
16 WaveformEW 0.82 0.01 0.16 0.01 32.6 3.41 17.26 2.48
17 WineEW 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 7.7 2.10 5.03 0.35
18 Zoo 0.98 0.02 0.02 0.02 10.2 1.33 4.86 0.33

Table 4 Average classification

Dataset Proposed BWOAHHO BWOA BHHO BGA BPSO WOASAT-2
accuracy of proposed
BWOAHHO and relevant work Breastcancer 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.95 0.97
approaches
BreastEW 0.99 0.97 0.98 0.94 0.94 0.98
CongressEW 0.98 0.96 0.98 0.94 0.94 0.98
Exactly 0.85 0.78 1.00 0.67 0.68 1.00
Exactly2 0.76 0.77 0.79 0.76 0.75 0.75
HeartEW 0.89 0.88 0.91 0.82 0.78 0.85
IonoshpereEW 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.83 0.84 0.96
KrvskpEW 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.92 0.94 0.98
Lymphography 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.71 0.69 0.89
M-of-n 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.93 0.86 1.00
PenglungEW 0.96 0.89 0.94 0.70 0.72 0.94
SonarEW 0.93 0.91 0.96 0.73 0.74 0.97
SpectEW 0.91 0.87 0.90 0.78 0.77 0.88
Tic-tac-toe 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.71 0.73 0.79
Vote 0.97 0.96 0.97 0.89 0.89 0.97
WaveformEW 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.77 0.76 0.76
WineEW 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.93 0.95 0.99
Zoo 0.98 0.96 0.97 0.88 0.83 0.97
Average 0.92 0.90 0.93 0.83 0.82 0.92

1 XM 4.3.2 Average fitness

Average Accuracy ¼ AccuracyK ð23Þ
M k¼1
The average value of the attained fitness function is
where AccuracyK denotes the accuracy at run k.
referred to by this metric. Equation (24) is used to calculate
the algorithm’s mean fitness after it has been performed M
times:

123
 Neural Computing and Applications

Table 5 Comparison of the

Dataset Proposed BWOAHHO BWOA BHHO BGA BPSO WOASAT-2
proposed BWOAHHO’s mean
fitness function and a similar Breastcancer 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04
works technique
BreastEW 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.03
CongressEW 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.03
Exactly 0.15 0.23 0.05 0.28 0.28 0.01
Exactly2 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.25 0.25 0.25
HeartEW 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.14 0.15 0.16
IonosphereEW 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.14 0.04
KrvskpEW 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.02
Lymphography 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.17 0.19 0.11
M-of-n 0.09 0.07 0.01 0.08 0.11 0.01
PenglungEW 0.04 0.11 0.04 0.22 0.22 0.06
SonarEW 0.07 0.14 0.05 0.13 0.13 0.03
SpectEW 0.10 0.13 0.08 0.14 0.13 0.13
Tic-tac-toe 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.24 0.24 0.21
Vote 0.02 0.09 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.04
WaveformEW 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.20 0.22 0.25
WineEW 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01
Zoo 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.10 0.04
Average 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.08

1 XM k statistic. The average selection is obtained as in Eq. (27)

Mean fitness ¼ g
k¼1 
ð24Þ
M after the procedure has been executed M times:
where gk indicates set to be the fitness function value over 1 XM Avg:sizek
Average selection ¼ ð27Þ
the operated k. M k¼1 Tf
where T f represents the set of attributes, whereas Avg.sizek
4.3.3 Optimal fitness
denotes the mean size of the attribute values over the
operated k.
This measure indicates the fitness function’s minimum
value. After running the algorithm M times, the best fitness
4.3.6 Mean execution time
is calculated as shown in Eq. (25):
Best fitness ¼ MinM k
K¼1 g ð25Þ The average computing time is expressed in seconds. The
gk
where denotes the best fitness solution obtained over the average computing time is computed using Eq. (28)
XM
operated k. Average time ¼ Avg:timek ð28Þ
k¼1

4.3.4 Least fitness where Avg:timek is the average amount of time spent
computing over the operated k.
The mentioned measure relates to the fitness function’s
greatest value. The worst fitness of the algorithm is cal-
culated as in Eq. (26) when it is executed M times: 5 Discussion of the findings
Worst fitness ¼ MaxM k
K¼1 g ð26Þ
The proposed hybrid algorithm’s outcomes are discussed in
where gk denotes the best fitness value over the operated k. this section.

4.3.5 Average attribute size selected 5.1 BWOAHHO algorithm

The mentioned ratio of the average size of the selected The results of utilizing the new BWOAHHO heuristic
features to the total number of features is referred to as this method to 18 datasets are stated in Table 3. The findings
include average variable accuracy, mean fitness, selection

123
Neural Computing and Applications

Table 6 Comparison of the

Dataset Proposed BWOAHHO BWOA BHHO BGA BPSO WOASAT-2
introduced BWOAHHO and
relevant work methods optimal Breastcancer 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.03
fitness function
BreastEW 0.01 0.011 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02
CongressEW 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.02
Exactly 0.20 0.13 0.001 0.27 0.21 0.01
Exactly2 0.20 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.23
HeartEW 0.07 0.14 0.06 0.12 0.13 0.13
IonosphereEW 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.03
KrvskpEW 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02
Lymphography 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.12 0.14 0.09
M-of-n 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.01
PenglungEW 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.03
SonarEW 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.01
SpectEW 0.06 0.13 0.04 0.12 0.10 0.11
Tic-tac-toe 0.13 0.15 0.11 0.21 0.21 0.20
Vote 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.02
WaveformEW 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.19 0.21 0.23
WineEW 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Zoo 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00
Average 0.07 0.08 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.07

Table 7 Comparison of the

Dataset Proposed BWOAHHO BWOA BHHO BGA BPSO WOASAT-2
proposed BWOAHHO and
comparable work techniques Breastcancer 0.01 0.036 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04
using the worst fitness function
BreastEW 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.04
CongressEW 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05
Exactly 0.20 0.26 0.12 0.28 0.28 0.01
Exactly2 0.20 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.27
HeartEW 0.09 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.18
IonosphereEW 0.1 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.05
KrvskpEW 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.02
Lymphography 0.10 0.11 0.14 0.17 0.19 0.14
M-of-n 0.09 0.07 0.02 0.08 0.11 0.01
PenglungEW 0.07 0.21 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.11
SonarEW 0.02 0.15 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.05
SpectEW 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.15
Tic-tac-toe 0.15 0.17 0.21 0.24 0.24 0.23
Vote 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04
WaveformEW 0.20 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.26
WineEW 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03
Zoo 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.03 0.10 0.10
Average 0.09 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.10

size of the feature and computing time. The method ran
twenty times for each dataset. WineEW was the dataset
with the greatest reported average accuracy of 100%.
Following that, in the BreastEW and Breastcancer datasets,
the average accuracy was 99 percent. The CongressEW and
Zoo datasets both had a 98 percent accuracy rate. On
average, the two datasets, Vote and KrvskpEW, were 97
percent accurate. The Breastcancer dataset was the smallest
in terms of feature selection (4.6 features). Following that,
the Exactly2 and Vote datasets, which had feature sizes of
5 and 5.1, respectively. It is worthwhile to mention that the
PenglungEW, Zoo, SpectEW, and WineEW datasets took
the least amount of time to compute, with times of 4.8,
4.86, 5.01, and 5.04 seconds, respectively.

123
 Neural Computing and Applications

Table 8 Comparison of the

Dataset Proposed BWOAHHO BWOA BHHO BGA BPSO WOASAT-2
proposed BWOAHHO’s
average selected attributes size Breastcancer 4.60 6.1 6.8 5.1 5.7 4.2
and related work techniques
BreastEW 18.10 18.9 21.2 16.3 16.6 11.6
CongressEW 5.30 6.2 9.2 6.6 6.8 6.4
Exactly 8.7 10.2 6.8 10.8 9.8 6.0
Exactly2 5 6.35 8 6.2 6.2 2.8
HeartEW 7.2 8.8 8.8 9.5 7.9 5.4
IonosphereEW 7.7 6.55 18.1 17.3 19.2 12.8
KrvskpEW 30.2 30.5 35.85 22.4 20.8 18.4
Lymphography 9.2 9 10.6 11.0 9.0 7.2
M-of-n 9.9 9.6 6.9 6.8 9.1 6.0
PenglungEW 123.3 129.9 166.5 177.1 178.8 127.4
SonarEW 25 36.1 37.4 33.3 31.2 26.4
SpectEW 8.7 11.9 12.8 11.7 12.5 9.4
Tic-tac-toe 6.8 8.8 9.0 6.8 6.6 6.0
Vote 5.1 8.7 9.1 6.6 8.8 5.2
WaveformEW 32.6 35.5 27.9 25.30 22.7 20.6
WineEW 7.7 8.3 7.8 8.6 8.4 6.40
Zoo 10.2 10.7 10 21.8 21.66 5.60
Average 18.07 20.12 22.3 22.40 22.32 15.99

5.2 Comparison of the proposed BWOAHHO (execution) time should be considered while evaluating the
algorithm to other algorithms algorithm’s performance.

The BWOAHHO method is proposed to provide extra
unpredictability to the BWOA algorithm’s exploration
phase search process. In terms of Accuracy of classifier,
average fitness, optimal fitness, least fitness, Attribute size
selected, and the time it takes to compute, Tables 4 through
9 compare the proposed BWOAHHO to several previous
wrapper-based methods.
5.2.1 Classification accuracy comparison
In Table 4, the developed BWOAHHO algorithm is com-
pared to related metaheuristic algorithms with regards to
accuracy. BWOAHHO had a classification accuracy of
0.92 in the 18 datasets, which was greater than BWOA
(0.90), BPSO (0.82), and BGA (0.82). (0.83). The proposed
approach is a hybridization of BWOA and BHHO, two
binary algorithms. Out of the 18 datasets analyzed, the
BWOAHHO algorithms outscored the BWOA algorithms
in 14 of them, demonstrating that hybridization improved
classification accuracy. Furthermore, the proposed
BWOAHHO method outperformed the BPSO and BGA
algorithms on all 18 datasets examined. It also outper-
formed WOASAT-2 in 13 of the 18 datasets tested. It’s
worth noting that BHHO’s average classification accuracy
was 0.93, which was somewhat higher than the proposed
algorithm’s average accuracy. However, other variables
like as fitness, selected feature size, and computing
5.2.2 Mean fitness comparison
Table 5 reveals that the novel BWOAHHO has an average
fitness of 0.08, which is lower than the average fitness of
BWOA (0.10), BPSO (0.13), and BGA (0.13). However,
the proposed BWOAHHO algorithm showed best average
fitness results in ten over eighteen datasets. Low fitness
levels suggest that an algorithm is performing well. In 14
of the 18 datasets studied, the BWOAHHO algorithms
outperformed the BWOA algorithms in terms of fitness.
Furthermore, the suggested BWOAHHO method outper-
formed the BPSO and BGA algorithms on all 18 datasets
examined. It also outperformed WOASAT-2 in twelve
datasets tested. It’s worth noting that BHHO’s average
classification accuracy was 0.06, which was somewhat
higher than the proposed hybrid algorithm’s average
fitness.
5.2.3 Best fitness comparison
As mentioned in Table 6, the average best fitness of the
proposed BWOAHHO, BWOA, BHHO, BPSO, BGA and
WOSAT-2 are 0.07, 0.08, 0.04, 0.09 and 0.08 respectively.
The experiments result of best fitness indicates that the
proposed algorithm outperformed the BWOA algorithm in
fifteen datasets, whereas outperformed BPSO and BGA
algorithms in seventeen datasets. However, the average of

123
Neural Computing and Applications

Fig. 2 BWOAHHO and other 1

algorithms achieved a selection
0.9
accuracy and b the quantity of
selected attributes in limited 0.8
datasets 0.7
0.6

Accuracy
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Breastcancer Exactly Exactly 2 HeartEW M-of-n Tic-tac-toe WineEW
Datasets

BWOAHHO BWOA BHHO BPSO BGA WOASAT-2

(a)

WineEW

Tic-tac-toe

M-of-n
Dataset

HeartEW

Exactly2

Exactly

Breastcancer

0 3 6 9 12 15
Feature Size

WOASAT-2 BGA BPSO BHHO BWOA BWOAHHO

(b)

the optimal fitness of native BHHO algorithm is slightly
higher than the proposed BWOAHHO.
5.2.4 Worst fitness comparison
Furthermore, based on the average worst fitness value,
Table 7 illustrated that the new metaheuristic BWOAHHO
was not the worst in all datasets. The average of the worst
fitness of proposed BWOAHHO is 0.09, which is the best
value over BWOA (0.12), BHHO (0.11), BGA (0.13),
BPSO (0.13) and WOASAT-2 (0.10).
5.2.5 Selected features comparison
Another statistic to consider when evaluating a feature
selection algorithm is its capacity to reduce the number of
selected characteristics in order to eliminate redundant
ones. In 18 datasets, Table 8 compares the selected feature
size achieved by the proposed BWOAHHO algorithm with
that acquired by the other five techniques. BWOAHHO,
BWOA, BHHO, BGA, and WOASAT-2 achieved average
selected feature sizes of 18.07, 20.12, 22.3 22.32, 22.40,
and 15.99, respectively. In other words, BWOAHHO out-
performed all algorithms except WOASAT-2 in terms of
specified feature size.

123
 Neural Computing and Applications

Fig. 3 BWOAHHO and other 1

algorithms achieve a selection
0.9
accuracy and b the quantity of
selected attributes 0.8
in intermediate datasets
0.7

0.6

0.5

Accuracy
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
CongressEW Lymphography SpectEW Vote Zoo
Dataset
BWOAHHO BWOA BHHO BPSO BGA WOASAT-2

(a)

Zoo

Vote
Dataset

SpectEW

Lymphography

CongressEW

0 5 10 15 20 25
Feature Size

WOASAT-2 BGA BPSO BHHO BWOA BWOAHHO

(b)

5.2.6 Computational time comparison
Table 8 shows how long the proposed BWOAHHO
method, and the other three algorithms take to compute in
seconds. For BWOAHHO, BWOA, BHHO, and WOA-
SAT-2, the average computational time was 7.36, 7.81,
27.45, and 167.44 s, respectively. It is clear that the pro-
posed BWOAHHO method reduces the processing time
significantly. The proposed method has clearly offered a
robust feature selection procedure, as evidenced by the
statistical findings. The proposed BWOAHHO demon-
strated a remarkable capacity to choose fewer character-
istics while keeping excellent accuracy. Furthermore,
across all 18 datasets examined, the proposed BWOAHHO
takes considerably less time to compute (in seconds) than
native BWOA and other algorithms.
5.3 Performance of algorithms at various data
sizes is compared.
On datasets of various sizes, the proposed technique was
further evaluated in contrast to existing algorithms. The 18
datasets investigated were classified into three categories,
following [54, there are three types of datasets: limited
datasets (0–15 attributes), intermediate datasets (16–25
attributes), and big or enormous volumes of data (26?
attributes) (30–350 attributes). In each of the three cate-
gories under consideration, it was assessed whether the
suggested BWOAHHO algorithm and other algorithms

123
Neural Computing and Applications

Fig. 4 BWOAHHO and other 1

algorithms achieve a selection
accuracy and b the quantity of 0.9
selected attributes in big
0.8
datasets
0.7

0.6

Accuracy
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
BreastEW IonosphereEW KrvskpEW PenglungEW SonarEW WaveformEW
Dataset

BWOAHHO BWOA BHHO BPSO BGA WOASAT-2

(a)

WaveformEW

SonarEW

PenglungEW
Dataset

KrvskpEW

IonosphereEW

BreastEW

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Feature Size

WOASAT-2 BGA BPSO BHHO BWOA BWOAHHO

(b)

increased the accuracy of classification and the size of the
specified attributes.
Figure 2 compares the classification accuracy and fea-
ture selected size of the proposed BWOAHHO algorithm
with the accuracy and feature selected size of the other five
algorithms in the category of small datasets. As demon-
strated in Fig. 2a, BWOAHHO outperformed native
BWOA in five datasets (breast cancer, Exactly, HeartEW,
Tic-tac-toe, and WineEW) out of seven datasets. It also
outperformed BPSO and BGA in terms of accuracy in all
datasets with the exception of Exactly2, where BGA
outperformed BPSO by a small margin. In addition, in five
datasets, the proposed algorithm exceeded WOASAT-2
when it came to classification accuracy. In two datasets,
(Breastcance and WineEw, BWOAHHO outscored the
BHHO metaheuristic when it comes to accuracy.
BWOAHHO selected a smaller subset of attributes across
all datasets when contrasted to BWOA and BGA, with the
exception of the M-of-n dataset, as shown in
Fig. 2(b) BWOAHHO selected lesser number of features
than BHHO in four datasets, Tic-tac-toe, HeartEW,
Extactly2 and Breastcancer. When compared to BPSO, the

123
 Neural Computing and Applications

Table 9 Comparison of
Dataset Proposed BWOAHHO BWOA BHHO WOASAT-2
proposed BWOAHHO with
BWOA, BHHO, and Breastcancer 6.22 11.60 29.97 43.24
WOASAT-2 execution times (in
seconds) BreastEW 5.18 7.32 27.07 43.18
CongressEW 5.04 5.18 16.63 37.34
Exactly 9.29 5.98 18.80 57.39
Exactly2 6.18 6.55 31.97 55.85
HeartEW 5.41 5.73 24.49 28.67
IonosphereEW 5.11 5.41 25.20 30.79
KrvskpEW 17.92 22.75 35.85 641.01
Lymphography 4.85 5.44 19.24 27.15
M-of-n 7.92 6.24 31.90 52.32
PenglungEW 6.73 5.43 27.46 28.47
SonarEW 8.68 5.05 25.29 28.02
SpectEW 5.01 5.68 20.72 30.34
Tic-tac-toe 6.61 6.90 23.92 51.93
Vote 5.11 5.55 20.24 30.63
WaveformEW 17.26 19.08 75.21 1770.48
WineEW 5.03 5.46 21.33 29.59
Zoo 4.86 5.18 22.49 27.55
Average 7.36 7.81 27.45 167.44

Table 10 ANOVA results summary BPSO, BGA, and BHHO in all of medium-sized datasets.
Groups Count Sum Average accuracy Variance
Figure 3 shows that BWOAHHO selected a smaller subset
of features when compared to all other algorithms across
BWOAHHO 18 16.62 0.92 0.004459 all medium-sized datasets, with the exception of
BWOA 18 16.31 0.90 0.004649 Lymphography.
BHHO 18 16.84 0.93 0.004238 Figure 4 contrasts the novel BWOAHHO method to
BPSO 18 14.76 0.82 0.009271 other five algorithms in the large dataset’s category. In all
BGA 18 14.87 0.82 0.009849 large datasets except KrvskpEW, BWOAHHO outper-
WOASAT-2 18 16.63 0.92 0.007002 formed native BWOA, as shown in Fig. 2a. It also sur-
passed BPSO and BGA on large datasets in the matter of
accuracy. The new method also outperformed WOASAT-2
with regard to accuracies in two datasets (BreastEW and
Table 11 ANOVA results in Detail WaveformEW). In five out of six datasets, BWOAHHO
produced almost identical accuracy as BHHO. Notably, the
Source of variation SS df MS F P-value
suggested BWOAHHO achieved the best accuracy in the
Between groups 0.244 5 0.049 7.44 5.62E-06 largest dataset (PenglungEW, with 325 features). Figure 4b
Within groups 0.670 102 0.007 shows that BWOAHHO selected a smaller subset of fea-
Total 0.915 107 tures than other methods in two large datasets (SonarEW
and PenglungEW). Among the other large datasets,
WOSAT-2 had the fewest selected features. However, in
the largest dataset (PenglungEW), our proposed
new algorithm selected a lesser number of features in four BWOAHHO reduced the number of features the best.
datasets (WineEW, HeartEW, Exactly2 and Breastcancer) Across a variety of dataset sizes, the newly developed
out of the seven small size datasets. BWOAHHO algorithm achieves good results and, in many
Figure 3 compares the classification accuracy and fea- cases, outperforms current state-of-the-art methods.
ture selection size of the proposed BWOAHHO algorithm A hybrid approach, as known in which at least two
with that of other five algorithms in the medium dataset procedures are merged to improve the performance of each
category. Figure 3a shows that the classification accuracy technique, is one option for achieving this balance.
of BWOAHHO was higher than that of native BWOA, Hybridizing the WOA algorithm with the HHO algorithm
improves the balance between global search and local

123
Neural Computing and Applications
search, which leads to an enhancement in the accuracy of
the new hybrid algorithm. Besides, the hybrid BWOAHHO
algorithm showed a significant improvement in the exe-
cution time.
5.4 Significance analysis
A one-way ANOVA measure was applied to examine the
significance of the disparities in terms of statistics in the
produced accuracy attained through the described
BWOAHHO vs. further algorithms. The goal of this
inquiry is to determine whether the results from the two
assessments are different. We compared BWOAHHO’s
results to those of state-of-the-art approaches on eighteen
datasets. The discussion has been framed in terms of two
opposing statistical hypotheses by theoretical and applied
ecologists: we denote that there is no difference between
the model’s population parameters (i.e., the null hypothe-
sis, H0), which assumes that there is no significant differ-
ence in the accuracy of the proposed BWOAHHO
optimizer and other optimizers, whereas the other indicates
either one deterministic or probabilistic alternative (i.e., the
alternative hypothesis, Ha) that proves the contrary
hypothesis that there is a substantial difference in the
accuracy of the proposed BWOAHHO and the other opti-
mizers. Significant levels of implication more than 5%
confirm the null hypothesis (h0) statement, and conversely.
The methods that were employed throughout this evalua-
tion are similar to those used in [49, 50] and [51]. The
ANOVA results are summarized in Tables 9 and 10. The
p-values shown indicate that. It can be shown that the
suggested BWOAHHO outperformed the BWOA signifi-
cantly, with a p-value of 5.62E-06. Furthermore, when
compared to BHHO, BPSO, BGA, and WOASAT-2,
BWOAHHO provided a significant improvement. The total
number of data points (N) used is 18. As a result, the null
hypothesis of identical accuracy is rejected at the default
significance level of 5%. The f-ratio value resulted is 7.44.
5.62E - 06 is the p-value. At p \ 0.05, the result is sig-
nificant (Table 11).
6 Conclusion
To improve the performance of the existing wrapper-based
BWOA algorithm, a hybrid metaheuristic technique was
developed. The new approach BWOAHHO, investigated
using the HHO algorithm instead of the exploration phase
of native BWOA. Using 18 standard UCI datasets for
comparison. The effectiveness of the presented technique
has been assessed and contrasted. The native BGA, BPSO,
BWOA, BHHO, and WOASAT-2 feature selection algo-
rithms were tested and compared to the new hybrid
BWOAHHO. It’s fair to say that the proposed hybrid
method’s findings improve the native BWOA’s perfor-
mance. In terms of accuracy, selected attributes size, and
execution time, the novel hybrid technique outperformed
the native BWOA algorithm. These findings show that the
new hybridization strategy significantly enhanced the
native BWOA algorithm’s performance. Furthermore,
when compared to BHHO, BPSO, BWOAHHO produced a
significant improvement, as specified by the p-value of
fewer than 5%.
Future research project could be to use a hybrid WOA
algorithm to solve real issues like health data. Another
future projects, we could combine the WOA algorithm with
another P-metaheuristic algorithm, such as GSA.
Acknowledgements Research reported in this publication was sup-
ported by Fundamental Research Grant Project (FRGS) from the
Ministry of Education Malaysia (FRGS/1/2018/ICT02/UTP/03/1)
under UTP Grant No. 015MA0-013.
Data availability The data were taken from UCI public repository.
Code availability Will be made available upon request.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The author declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
1. Xue B, Zhang M, Browne WN, Yao X (2016) A survey on
evolutionary computation approaches to feature selection. IEEE
Trans Evol Comput 20(4):606–626. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TEVC.2015.2504420
2. Gou J, Xue Y, Ma H, Liu Y, Zhan Y, Ke J (2020) Double graphs-
based discriminant projections for dimensionality reduction. Neur
Comput Appl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-020-04924-5
3. Chen K, Zhou F-Y, Yuan X-F (2019) Hybrid particle swarm
optimization with spiral-shaped mechanism for feature selection.
Expert Sys Appl. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.03.039
4. Bellman RE (2015) Adaptive control processes. Princeton
University Press, New Jersey
5. Al-Wajih R, Abdulkadir SJ, Aziz N, Al-Tashi Q, Talpur N (2021)
Hybrid binary grey wolf with harris hawks optimizer for feature
selection. IEEE Access 9:31662–31677
6. Dash M, Liu H (1997) Feature selection for classification. Intell
Data Anal 1(1–4):131–156
7. Heidari AA, Mirjalili S, Faris H, Aljarah I, Mafarja M, Chen H
(2019) Harris hawks optimization: algorithm and applications.
Future Generat Comp Sys. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.
02.028
8. D. Karaboga (2005) ‘‘An idea based on honey bee swarm for
numerical optimization,’’
9. Mirjalili S, Mirjalili SM, Lewis A (2014) Grey wolf optimizer.
Adv Eng Softw. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2013.12.007
10. Panwar LK, Reddy S, Verma A, Panigrahi BK, Kumar R (2018)
Binary grey wolf optimizer for large scale unit commitment
problem. Swarm Evol Comput 38:251–266
123

11. Mirjalili S (2015) The ant lion optimizer. Adv Eng Softw. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2015.01.010
12. Mirjalili S, Lewis A (2016) The whale optimization algorithm.
Adv Eng Softw. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2016.01.008
13. Thaher T, Heidari AA, Mafarja M, Dong JS, Mirjalili S (2020)
Binary Harris Hawks optimizer for high-dimensional, low sample
size feature selection. Evolutionary machine learning techniques.
Springer, Berlin, pp 251–272
14. Chandrashekar G, Sahin F (2014) A survey on feature selection
methods. Comput Electr Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compelec
eng.2013.11.024
15. Liu H, Yu L (2005) Toward integrating feature selection algo-
rithms for classification and clustering. IEEE Trans Knowl Data
Eng 17(4):491–502
16. Muni DP, Pal NR, Das J (2006) ‘‘Genetic programming for
simultaneous feature selection and classifier design,.’’ IEEE
Trans Sys, Man, Cybernet Part B (Cybernetics) 36(1):106–117
17. Lin J-Y, Ke H-R, Chien B-C, Yang W-P (2008) Classifier design
with feature selection and feature extraction using layered genetic
programming. Expert Syst Appl 34(2):1384–1393
18. Talbi EG (2002) A taxonomy of hybrid metaheuristics. J Heurist.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016540724870
19. Il-Seok O, Jin-Seon L, Byung-Ro M (2004) Hybrid genetic
algorithms for feature selection. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach
Intell 26(11):1424–1437. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2004.
105
20. Dong H, Li T, Ding R, Sun J (2018) A novel hybrid genetic
algorithm with granular information for feature selection and
optimization. Appl Soft Comput. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.
2017.12.048
21. Huang J, Cai Y, Xu X (2007) A hybrid genetic algorithm for
feature selection wrapper based on mutual information. Patt
Recogn Lett. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2007.05.011
22. Liu X-Y, Liang Y, Wang S, Yang Z-Y, Ye H-S (2018) A hybrid
genetic algorithm with wrapper-embedded approaches for feature
selection. IEEE Access 6:22863–22874
23. Huang C-L, Dun J-F (2008) A distributed PSO–SVM hybrid
system with feature selection and parameter optimization. Appl
Soft Comput. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2007.10.007
24. Abdel-Basset M, Ding W, El-Shahat D (2021) A hybrid Harris
Hawks optimization algorithm with simulated annealing for
feature selection. Artif Intell Rev 54(1):593–637
25. Javidrad F, Nazari M, Javidrad HR (2018) Optimum stacking
sequence design of laminates using a hybrid PSO-SA method.
Comp Struct. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.11.074
26. Eappen G, Shankar T (2020) Hybrid PSO-GSA for energy effi-
cient spectrum sensing in cognitive radio network. Phys Com-
mun. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phycom.2020.101091
27. Abdel-Basset M, El-Shahat D, El-henawy I, De Albuquerque
Victor Hugo C., Mirjalili S (2020) A new fusion of grey wolf
optimizer algorithm with a two-phase mutation for feature
selection. Expert Sys Appl. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.
112824
28. Mafarja M, Qasem A, Heidari AA, Aljarah I, Faris H, Mirjalili S
(2020) Efficient hybrid nature-inspired binary optimizers for
feature selection. Cogn Comput 12(1):150–175
29. Mohammadzadeh H, Gharehchopogh FS (2021) A novel hybrid
whale optimization algorithm with flower pollination algorithm
for feature selection: Case study Email spam detection. Comput
Intell 37(1):176–209
30. Got A, Moussaoui A, Zouache D (2021) Hybrid filter-wrapper
feature selection using whale optimization algorithm: a multi-
objective approach. Expert Sys Appl 183:115312
31. Liu M, Yao X, Li Y (2020) Hybrid whale optimization algorithm
enhanced with Lévy flight and differential evolution for job shop
123
Neural Computing and Applications
scheduling problems. Appl Soft Comput. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.asoc.2019.105954
32. Hussain K, Neggaz N, Zhu W, Houssein EH (2021) An efficient
hybrid sine-cosine Harris hawks optimization for low and high-
dimensional feature selection. Expert Syst Appl 176:114778
33. Houssein EH, Hosney ME, Elhoseny M, Oliva D, Mohamed
WM, Hassaballah M (2020) Hybrid Harris hawks optimization
with cuckoo search for drug design and discovery in chemoin-
formatics. Sci Rep 10(1):1–22
34. Reddy KS, Panwar LK, Panigrahi B, Kumar R (2018) A new
binary variant of sine–cosine algorithm: development and appli-
cation to solve profit-based unit commitment problem. Arab J Sci
Eng 43(8):4041–4056
35. Yıldız AR, Yıldız BS, Sait SM, Bureerat S, Pholdee N (2019) A
new hybrid Harris hawks-Nelder-Mead optimization algorithm
for solving design and manufacturing problems. Mater Test
61(8):735–743. https://doi.org/10.3139/120.111378
36. Barshandeh S, Piri F, Sangani SR (2020) HMPA: an innovative
hybrid multi-population algorithm based on artificial ecosystem-
based and Harris Hawks optimization algorithms for engineering
problems. Eng Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-020-
01120-w
37. Mafarja MM, Mirjalili S (2017) Hybrid whale optimization
algorithm with simulated annealing for feature selection. Neu-
rocomputing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2017.04.053
38. Emary E, Zawbaa HM, Hassanien AE (2016) Binary ant lion
approaches for feature selection. Neurocomputing. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.neucom.2016.03.101
39. Chuang L-Y, Chang H-W, Tu C-J, Yang C-H (2008) Improved
binary PSO for feature selection using gene expression data.
Computat Biol Chem. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiolchem.
2007.09.005
40. Gou J, Qiu W, Yi Z, Shen X, Zhan Y, Ou W (2019) Locality
constrained representation-based K-nearest neighbor classifica-
tion. Knowl-Based Sys. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2019.01.
016
41. Gou J, Ma H, Ou W, Zeng S, Rao Y, Yang H (2019) A gener-
alized mean distance-based k-nearest neighbor classifier. Expert
Syst Appl 115:356–372
42. Yesilbudak M, Sagiroglu S, Colak I (2017) A novel implemen-
tation of kNN classifier based on multi-tupled meteorological
input data for wind power prediction. Energy Convers Manage.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.12.094
43. Asuncion A, Newman D (2007) ‘‘UCI machine learning reposi-
tory,’’ ed: Irvine, CA, USA
44. Al-Tashi Q, Kadir SJA, Rais HM, Mirjalili S, Alhussian H (2019)
Binary optimization using hybrid grey wolf optimization for
feature selection. IEEE Access 7:39496–39508. https://doi.org/
10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2906757
45. Imandoust SB, Bolandraftar M (2013) Application of k-nearest
neighbor (knn) approach for predicting economic events: theo-
retical background. Int J Eng Res Appl 3(5):605–610
46. Wang L, Khan L, Thuraisingham B (2008) ‘‘An effective evi-
dence theory based k-nearest neighbor (knn) classification,’’ In
2008 IEEE/WIC/ACM International conference on web intelli-
gence and intelligent agent technology, 2008, vol. 1: IEEE,
pp. 797–801
47. Al-wajih R, Abdulakaddir SJ, Aziz NBA, Al-tashi Q (2020)
‘‘Binary Grey Wolf Optimizer with K-Nearest Neighbor classifier
for Feature Selection,’’ In 2020 International conference on
computational intelligence (ICCI), 8–9 Oct. 2020 2020,
pp. 130–136, doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCI51257.2020.
9247792
48. Khanesar MA, Teshnehlab M, Shoorehdeli MA (2007) ‘‘A novel
binary particle swarm optimization,’’ In: 2007 Mediterranean
conference on control & automation, IEEE, pp. 1–6
Neural Computing and Applications

49. Mafarja M, Aljarah I, Faris H, Hammouri AI, Ala’M A-Z, Mir- 51. Emary E, Zawbaa HM, Hassanien AE (2016) Binary grey wolf
jalili S (2019) Binary grasshopper optimisation algorithm optimization approaches for feature selection. Neurocomputing
approaches for feature selection problems. Expert Sys Appl 172:371–381
117:267–286
50. Abdulrauf Sharifai G, Zainol Z (2020) ‘‘Feature selection for Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
high-dimensional and imbalanced biomedical data based on jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
robust correlation based redundancy and binary grasshopper
optimization algorithm,’’ Genes, vol. 11, no. 7, p. 717, 2020.
[Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/11/7/717

123

View publication stats