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.

BestMeanWorstOptimal

G1Proposed approach−14.99145−14.96119−14.81634−15.0
[10]−14.7207−14.4609−14.0566

G2Proposed approach0.787270.742440.675300.803553
[10]0.795060.791760.78427

G3Proposed approach0.987040.920630.728121.0
[10]0.99830.99650.9917

G4Proposed approach−30665.259−30662.639−30648.807−30655.5
[10]−30662.5−30643.8−30617.0

G5Proposed approach5126.4981
[10]

G6Proposed approach−6917.85904−6862.02084−6425.38018−6961.8
[10]−6901.5−6191.2−4236.7

G7Proposed approach24.5252526.1299929.2403224.306
[10]25.13226.61938.682

G8Proposed approach0.095825040.095825040.0958250360.0958250
[10]0.0958250.08715510.0291434

G9Proposed approach680.74163681.00480681.53181680.63
[10]681.43682.18682.88

G10Proposed approach7132.983207543.485928845.853307049.33
[10]7215.89141.711894.5

G11Proposed approach0.750.750850.756550.75
[10]0.750.750.75