Composite Differential Search Algorithm

<table>Comparison of performance of six algorithms for minimization of <svg height="13.1824pt" id="M439" style="vertical-align:-3.53609pt" version="1.1" viewbox="0 -9.64631 16.2415 13.1824" width="16.2415pt" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g transform="matrix(.0135,0,0,-0.0135,0,0)"><path d="M619 670C619 686 593 712 555 712S459 686 410 634S335 504 320 430H250L219 400L222 388H312L258 73C223 -133 201 -166 187 -180C175 -191 158 -199 140 -199C123 -199 88 -188 74 -172C68 -166 63 -164 54 -171C38 -185 23 -201 23 -215C23 -236 60 -261 93 -261C122 -261 161 -247 207 -200C268 -138 300 -71 337 94C365 220 376 277 394 387L501 399L521 430H401C432 623 464 665 501 665C524 665 544 651 567 627C577 617 583 618 592 625C601 631 619 651 619 670Z" id="g113-103"></path><glyph.data ascent="3473" descent="-2876" horiz-adv-x="642" vert-adv-y="642"></glyph.data></g><g transform="matrix(.0095,0,0,-0.0095,7.004,3.264)"><path d="M389 0V32C297 38 291 46 291 118V635C234 613 175 595 109 583V556L161 554C203 552 207 547 207 497V118C207 46 201 38 110 32V0H389Z" id="g50-50"></path><glyph.data ascent="3443" descent="-2856" horiz-adv-x="487" vert-adv-y="487"></glyph.data></g><g transform="matrix(.0095,0,0,-0.0095,11.623,3.264)"><path d="M290 377C321 398 342 415 358 430C378 450 389 473 389 502C389 578 329 635 238 635H237C184 635 137 610 109 578L64 515L88 493C112 529 154 573 208 573S303 542 303 482C303 409 233 370 141 341L149 308C165 313 190 319 215 319C272 319 341 283 341 193C342 98 292 43 222 43C163 43 122 72 96 94C88 101 79 100 70 94C61 87 47 73 46 60C44 47 48 37 62 23C76 10 118 -12 165 -12C238 -12 430 62 430 223C430 297 379 359 290 375V377Z" id="g50-52"></path><glyph.data ascent="3443" descent="-2856" horiz-adv-x="487" vert-adv-y="487"></glyph.data></g></svg> with dimension 30.</table>

Journal of Applied Mathematics

Composite Differential Search Algorithm

Figure 12