Table 4: The performance of the proposed approach in comparison with [10] on eleven test problems. The number of function evaluations is the same in both studies. The best results are indicated in boldface.

Best Mean Worst Optimal G1 Proposed approach −14.99145 −14.96119 −14.81634 −15.0 [10] −14.7207 −14.4609 −14.0566 G2 Proposed approach 0.78727 0.74244 0.67530 0.803553 [10] 0.79506 0.79176 0.78427 G3 Proposed approach 0.98704 0.92063 0.72812 1.0 [10] 0.9983 0.9965 0.9917 G4 Proposed approach −30665.259 −30662.639 −30648.807 −30655.5 [10] −30662.5 −30643.8 −30617.0 G5 Proposed approach — — — 5126.4981 [10] — — — G6 Proposed approach −6917.85904 −6862.02084 −6425.38018 −6961.8 [10] −6901.5 −6191.2 −4236.7 G7 Proposed approach 24.52525 26.12999 29.24032 24.306 [10] 25.132 26.619 38.682 G8 Proposed approach 0.09582504 0.09582504 0.095825036 0.0958250 [10] 0.095825 0.0871551 0.0291434 G9 Proposed approach 680.74163 681.00480 681.53181 680.63 [10] 681.43 682.18 682.88 G10 Proposed approach 7132.98320 7543.48592 8845.85330 7049.33 [10] 7215.8 9141.7 11894.5 G11 Proposed approach 0.75 0.75085 0.75655 0.75 [10] 0.75 0.75 0.75