2022
DOI: 10.1007/s00521-022-07788-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating the performance of meta-heuristic algorithms on CEC 2021 benchmark problems

Abstract: To develop new meta-heuristic algorithms and evaluate on the benchmark functions is the most challenging task. In this paper, performance of the various developed meta-heuristic algorithms are evaluated on the recently developed CEC 2021 benchmark functions. The objective functions are parametrized by inclusion of the operators, such as bias, shift and rotation. The different combinations of the binary operators are applied to the objective functions which leads to the CEC2021 benchmark functions. Therefore, d… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is an advantage, but it also implies the limitations of the proposal, because it is applicable to the characteristics of IKP for robots or animation applications where an initial posture and the final value (not the solution) of the optimization function are met, and the final and initial postures are similar. These characteristics contrast with the benchmark problems shown in [18,20,21], where the optimal value was assumed to be unknown; in some cases, the best value was not necessarily the optimal, and it was not required that the final solution has similarity with a specific initial design vector.…”
Section: Experiments and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…This is an advantage, but it also implies the limitations of the proposal, because it is applicable to the characteristics of IKP for robots or animation applications where an initial posture and the final value (not the solution) of the optimization function are met, and the final and initial postures are similar. These characteristics contrast with the benchmark problems shown in [18,20,21], where the optimal value was assumed to be unknown; in some cases, the best value was not necessarily the optimal, and it was not required that the final solution has similarity with a specific initial design vector.…”
Section: Experiments and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The IEEE CEC 2021 functions, which include 20 dimensions and evaluate the performance of algorithms on shifted, rotated, and biased functions, and the IEEE CEC 2017 test suite, which includes 50 dimensions, were used to thoroughly examine the performance of the LWSSA. Further details about the IEEE CEC 2017 and IEEE CEC 2021 functions can be found in [59,60], respectively. The results of the experiment were obtained through 30 independent runs, each comprising 2500 iterations, for statistical analysis.…”
Section: Experimental Results and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are a total of 10 various functions included in the IEEE CEC 2021 benchmark suite. The associated technical paper [60] contains in-depth explanations of each and every one of these functions. The extra material includes an illustration that provides a summary of all 10 functions in total.…”
Section: Experiments 1: Benchmark Examination For the Ieee Cec 2021mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The algorithm is based on MATLAB 2022b and implemented in the M language. The CEC2018 test suite consists of a total of 30 single-objective test functions, with search intervals ranging between [− 100, 100] 52 . All the test functions aim to solve the minimization problem, with D representing the dimension (30 dimensions), as follows:…”
Section: Simulation Comparison and Performance Testmentioning
confidence: 99%