“…Table 3 records the combined results of IHGS at 10D, 30D, 50D, and 100D based on the Friedman test and Wilcoxon singed-rank test with a significance level of 0.05. From the perspective of symbols of "+/À/=", among the 30 examples in lower dimensions (10D), the IHGS algorithm has 20,8,17,20,7,29,22,1,21,9,18,4,17,29 examples outperforming OBSCA, EB_LSHADE, SCADE, CBA, EAGDE, CESCA, AMFOA, EBOW, RCBA, JSO, HGWO, LSHADESPACMA, BMWOA, MSFOA, and there are 7, 21, 7, 5, 21, 0, 8, 28, 5, 18, 10, 19, 9, 1 examples weaker than them, while there are 3, 1, 6, 5, 2, 1, 0, 1, 4, 3, 2, 7, 4 examples with the same performance as them. As the problem's dimensionality increases, IHGS is more advantageous in handling high-dimensional problems.…”