Composite Differential Search Algorithm

<table>Comparison of performance of six algorithms for minimization of <svg height="13.1824pt" id="M430" 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="M245 635C92 635 37 457 37 312C37 149 91 -12 244 -12C395 -12 449 166 449 312C449 469 395 635 245 635ZM243 598C332 598 358 454 358 312C358 173 334 26 245 26C158 26 128 174 128 313S152 598 243 598Z" id="g50-49"></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="M414 144C384 79 371 75 317 75H135L276 221C367 316 408 376 408 465C408 570 327 635 237 635C179 635 131 609 100 575L42 494L67 471C94 510 138 565 205 565C277 565 321 517 321 435C321 348 258 270 195 195C146 137 88 81 33 26V0H411C423 44 433 88 446 135L414 144Z" id="g50-51"></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 3