Next Article in Journal
Three Existence Results in the Fixed Point Theory
Next Article in Special Issue
Dementia Classification Approach Based on Non-Singleton General Type-2 Fuzzy Reasoning
Previous Article in Journal
C0–Semigroups Approach to the Reliability Model Based on Robot-Safety System
Previous Article in Special Issue
Multi-Strategy-Improved Growth Optimizer and Its Applications
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

An Enhanced Fuzzy Hybrid of Fireworks and Grey Wolf Metaheuristic Algorithms

Tijuana Institute of Technology, TecNM, Calzada Tecnologico S/N, Tijuana 22414, BC, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Axioms 2024, 13(7), 424; https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms13070424
Submission received: 26 April 2024 / Revised: 17 June 2024 / Accepted: 18 June 2024 / Published: 24 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Mathematical Optimization Algorithms and Its Applications)

Abstract

:
This research work envisages addressing fuzzy adjustment of parameters into a hybrid optimization algorithm for solving mathematical benchmark function problems. The problem of benchmark mathematical functions consists of finding the minimal values. In this study, we considered function optimization. We are presenting an enhanced Fuzzy Hybrid Algorithm, which is called Enhanced Fuzzy Hybrid Fireworks and Grey Wolf Metaheuristic Algorithm, and denoted as EF-FWA-GWO. The fuzzy adjustment of parameters is achieved using Fuzzy Inference Systems. For this work, we implemented two variants of the Fuzzy Systems. The first variant utilizes Triangular membership functions, and the second variant employs Gaussian membership functions. Both variants are of a Mamdani Fuzzy Inference Type. The proposed method was applied to 22 mathematical benchmark functions, divided into two parts: the first part consists of 13 functions that can be classified as unimodal and multimodal, and the second part consists of the 9 fixed-dimension multimodal benchmark functions. The proposed method presents better performance with 60 and 90 dimensions, averaging 51% and 58% improvement in the benchmark functions, respectively. And then, a statistical comparison between the conventional hybrid algorithm and the Fuzzy Enhanced Hybrid Algorithm is presented to complement the conclusions of this research. Finally, we also applied the Fuzzy Hybrid Algorithm in a control problem to test its performance in designing a Fuzzy controller for a mobile robot.

1. Introduction

Evolutionary Computation (EC), Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), and Fuzzy Logic (FL) are three powerful branches of the computer sciences. Computational intelligence focuses on the study of adaptive mechanisms to allow the performance of complex and dynamic systems, and, as we already know, there are computational systems that imitate nature and human linguistic reasoning.
For this research work, we focus on the Optimization Algorithms [1,2,3], which are a branch of Evolutionary Computation. Over the years, research scientists have contributed to a wide variety of Optimization Algorithms, especially in the algorithms based on swarm intelligence [4], such as the Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO) [5] and Fireworks Algorithm (FWA) [6,7]; the previously mentioned algorithms are the basis for the present investigation, in which we added the use of Fuzzy Logic.
Computational Intelligence is a very broad field in the Computational Sciences, but one specific branch is Fuzzy Logic [8], which is a highly researched branch, and this is reflected in different recent applications. One of the applications of Fuzzy Logic is controlling variables, parameters, or processes. In this case, we are using Fuzzy Logic to dynamically adjust parameters in the Optimization Algorithms.
On the other hand, hybridization has gained strength in the field of computer sciences. We could divide the hybridization into two parts: soft and strong. Soft hybridization is the combination of two or more similar computing systems. On the contrary, the combination of two or more different computing systems can be called strong hybridization [9].
The impact of utilizing Fuzzy Logic in the Optimization Algorithms is shown and detailed in this paper, which is the key contribution of the research. In this work, we are improving the performance of FWA-GWA [10] by introducing a Fuzzy Inference System (FIS) of a Mamdani Type. This is done with the objective of dynamically adjusting the amplitude coefficient, and then, the equilibrium between the exploration and exploitation during the execution of the Hybrid Algorithm is achieved.
Also, it is important to highlight that the present research work is a continuation of previous work, i.e., the hybridization between FWA and GWO algorithms was a novel model that unleashed the development of similar hybridization works. Therefore, the main goal and contribution mentioned in the above paragraph is that the improvement to the hybrid method is by using Fuzzy Logic, in this case, in order to adjust the parameters in the hybrid method (to combine the advantages of both analyzed methods: FWA and GWO). The conventional hybrid has better performance only in the mathematical models of the algorithms and in this case, we are introducing Fuzzy Logic in the mathematical model proposed previously in order to improve even more the performance of the hybrid method.
The content of the paper is organized as follows: a review of FWA-GWO, which is the Conventional Hybrid Algorithm, is shown in Section 2. The proposed EF-FWA-GWO is outlined in Section 3. Section 4 describes the experiments and results. Lastly, Section 5 outlines the conclusions.

2. Conventional FWA-GWO Hybrid Algorithm

It is relevant to mention that in the conventional FWA-GWO (that is, the hybridization of the Fireworks Algorithm and Grey Wolf Optimization), the idea was to mathematically incorporate the best equations into one optimization algorithm, and we briefly review these ideas in the following lines.
The first method is the Fireworks Algorithm (FWA), which was implemented in 2010 by Ying Tan [11,12]. This method is based on the behavior of the fireworks when it explodes generating sparks that are represented in equations. In the hybridization, the authors take advantage of the following features:
  • The way the algorithm initialization occurs;
  • Explosion amplitude that in the algorithm we can note as the exploration and exploitation modes;
  • Finally, the different locations that the sparks can localize in the search range of the optimization problem.
The second algorithm that was selected is the Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO) that Mirjalili published in 2014 and has thousands of citations around the world; the main inspiration was in the research of Muro [13] about the behavior of Canis lupus and the advantages that the hybridization take are the following:
  • The feature that the algorithm has to select the best solutions in one hierarchical pyramid;
  • The interaction among the population in relationship with the leaders of the algorithm or best solutions;
  • The way that the population can move to the next location in the search space based on the hierarchical pyramid.
In order to show the general flow chart and behavior of the conventional FWA-GWO method [14], presented in Figure 1, it is important to mention that the red blocks represent the features mentioned above about the FWA method, and the blue blocks used the methodology of the GWO algorithm [15].
In order to describe mathematically the hybrid method, we are presenting the main equations:
The first step into the algorithm is to determine the number of iterations that the algorithm has based on the function evaluations (O), the number of packs in the algorithm (n), and finally, the number of wolves for each pack at the beginning of the algorithm (m), we can then note these features in Equation (1).
T = O n     m
It is important to consider the search space that the problem has in order to initialize it in a correct way; in this case, Equations (2)–(4) represent these important features in the hybridization method to determine the locations of each wolf pack (n).
T S = u b l b
where ub is the upper boundary of the problem, lb represents the lower boundary, and finally, TS denotes the total search space in the algorithm.
With the value of TS, the algorithm selects the total number of subspaces that it needs according to the number of packs at the beginning (Equation (3)).
S S = T S n
With the value of SS, the algorithm can select different subspaces for each wolf pack, and we can note it as a linear function in Equation (4).
f n = a n + b
With the value of SS, the algorithm can select different subspaces for each wolf pack, and we can note it as a general linear function in Equation (4). Finally, in Figure 2, we can find an example of this mathematical model.
Figure 2 shows the example of the initialization of four packs with six wolves for each pack; each pack has an independent search space in order to initialize in different spaces, respectively; in this case, the first pack has initialized space between −100 and −50, the second pack have initialized space between −50 and 0, in the third pack wolves have a range space between 0 and 50, and finally, the last pack (for this example) initialize between 0 and 50. The figure also represents a problem with 30 dimensions that are the circles for each possible solution; the x-axis represents the number of wolves in the total population, and the y-axis represents the total search space in this example, which is between −100 and 100.
It is very relevant to highlight that one of the features that performs the hybridization is that the number of packs decreases during iterations of the algorithm; the main goal is to finish with only one bigger pack. Also, the FWA-GWO has the equation to determine the number of packs according to its three phases; we can note the feature in Equation (5) and the graphical way in Table 1.
n _ = n 2
These are the features that the FWA-GWO algorithm used in order to analyze the optimization problem. We applied the hierarchical pyramid and its inspiration to take advantage of both great algorithms. In the next equations, the authors mathematically represent the model and parameters used in the hybridization algorithm.
The first important behavior of the hybridization is the ability to specifically have a search space for each pack of wolves; in this case, it is represented by Equation (6):
A n = n = 1 ,                                                                                                         A 1 = 0.5 n = 2 ,                                                             A   1 = 1   and   A 2 = 2 n 3 ,                             A n = A ^   .     f x n y m i n + ϵ i = 1 n f x n y m i n + ϵ
This is an important and determinant equation in order to have exploration and exploitation in the algorithm; in order to apply different metaheuristics, the author normalized the mathematical model, as we can note in Equation (7):
A n ^ = 2   A n     M a x A n  
With these amplitudes, we can calculate the distance between the leader wolves and the rest of the wolves in the same pack; we can note this feature in Equation (8).
D n = A n ^   ·   X p n t     X n t  
This distance is needed to update the position of each wolf in the next iteration using Equation (9).
X n t + 1 =   X p n t     E n     D n
where En represents the randomness in the algorithm that can be used with any method (Gaussian, levy flights, sine wave, etc.) and is represented in Equation (10).
E n = 2 a   · r 1 n
Finally, it is important to recall that in this method, we used the hierarchy in the best solutions, so these equations applied for the best three solutions in each pack (alpha, beta, and delta), as can be noted in Equations (11), (12), and (13), respectively.
D α n = C 1 n ·   X α n     X n ,                   D β = C 2 n ·   X β n     X n ,                   D δ = C 3 n   ·   X δ n     X n
X 1 n =   X α n     E 1 n   ·   ( D α n ) ,                   X 2 n =   X β n     E 2 n   ·   ( D β n ) ,                   X 3 n =   X δ n     E 3 n   ·   ( D δ n )
X n t + 1 = X 1 n + X 2 n   + X 3 n   3
where Equation (13) is the average of the results among the alpha, beta, and delta solutions, respectively, and C represents the weight that each solution has over iterations that we can denote in Equation (14).
C n = A n ^   ·   r 2 n
In order to represent the mathematical model described above in a graphical way, we can note the pseudocode of the hybridization method in Figure 3.

3. Proposed Fuzzy Enhanced Hybrid Algorithm

An improvement to the conventional FWA-GWO is presented in this section, which we have named Enhanced Hybrid Fuzzy Fireworks and Grey Wolf Metaheuristic Algorithm (EF-FWA-GWO).
We have implemented a dynamical adjustment of parameters using a Mamdani-type Fuzzy Inference System [16,17] into the Hybrid Algorithm (FWA-GWO). The goal of the FIS is to control the exploration and exploitation during the execution of the algorithm.
The four general steps of the proposed EF-FWA-GWO are enlisted as follows:
  • Select initial locations and wolves;
  • Set initial packs with wolves at search space;
  • Update the positions for each search agent based on its packs;
    a.
    Dynamically adjustment parameter with Fuzzy Inference System of a Mamdani type;
  • Calculate the fitness of all search agents.
As we can see, the improvement mentioned in the above paragraph is described in step 3. For a detailed explanation, we have added a flow chart and an algorithm. Figure 4 shows it step by step in a graphic way, and Algorithm 1 shows the logical sequence of the EF-FWA-GWO algorithm.
Algorithm 1: Enhanced Fuzzy Hybrid FWA-GWO
Initialize n and m
Initialize the grey wolf population Xni (i = 1, 2 … n)
Initialize a, En and H F A n ^
Calculate the fitness of each search agent
X = the best search agent of n pack
X = the second-best agent of n pack
X = the third best search agent of n pack
while (t < Max number of iterations)
                for each search agent
                              Update the position of the current search agent by Equation (14)
                end for
                Update  H F A ^  or  H F A n
                Update n and m
                Calculate the fitness of all search agents
                Update X, X and X
                t = t + 1
end while
return best (X1α, X2αXnα)
The EF-FWA-GWO algorithm is a variant of an original work (FWA-GWO), which we have called the Conventional Hybrid Algorithm in this paper. In the original work, we can find a detailed explanation of steps 1, 2, and 4.
Consequently, as we described in step 3, we focus on explaining the dynamical adjustment of parameters with the Fuzzy Inference Systems of a Mamdani Type in this section.
We designed two different Fuzzy Inference Systems (FISs) to implement under a conditional decision. If the conditional was fulfilled, we implemented a Fuzzy Inference System named “FisPacks”; on the contrary, the “FisAmplitude” Fuzzy Inference System [18] was implemented.
The conditional decision to implement the FISs is shown in Figure 5.
We decided to use the conditional described in Figure 5 depending on the phase of the execution algorithm, i.e., in the initial and initial-medium phase, the Fuzzy Inference System [19] called “FisPacks” is executed, which has the objective of adjusting the Coefficient Amplitude with a decreasing value from 45 to 0. The FIS called “FisAmplitude” is executed in the medium-final and the final phase of the Fuzzy Hybrid Algorithm work. The main objective of this Fuzzy Inference System is to adjust the fuzzy exploitation amplitude with a decreasing normalized value from 2 to 0. The above-mentioned FISs allow the adjustment of parameters into the hybrid FWA-GWO algorithm to achieve the main goal of controlling the exploration and exploitation of the algorithm.

3.1. “FisPacks” Fuzzy Inference Systems

If the “FisPacks” is activated, the principal parameter to control the explosion amplitude of the agents based on its packs is the Amplitude Coefficient; therefore, the parameter that we modify into the Conventional Algorithm is the Amplitude Coefficient. For parameter modification, we are implementing a fuzzy adjustment with the goal of achieving a balance between exploration and exploitation.
The mathematical modification is presented in Equation (15):
H F A n = H F A ^   . f x n y m i n + ϵ i = 1 n f x n y m i n + ϵ
where ( H F A ^ ) will be in an increased range between 45 and 0.
As we mentioned above, we have used the FIS of a Mamdani Type [20] to dynamically adjust the parameters. We have decided to implement two variants in the Fuzzy Inference Systems, i.e., we have varied MFs in the input and output variables. The variants are Triangular and Gaussian membership functions.
Figure 6 depicts a Triangular representation of the “FisPacks” Fuzzy Inference System that was used.
All Fuzzy Inference Systems [21] variants are conformed by one input and two output variables, as can be observed in Figure 6.
In Figure 7, we are showing the “FisPacks” Gaussian Fuzzy Inference System.
The Phase input variable was normalized with values in the range between 0 and 1; the variable has three partitions: low, medium, and high, with the values range depending on the variant of the FIS. This input variable is used for both Fuzzy Inference implementations.
On the contrary, we have implemented two output variables in the Fuzzy Inference System; the first output variable is named ca (amplitude coefficient) with a range of values from 45 to 2, and a (amplitude) is the second output variable, with a normalized value from 2 to 0. Both output variables have three partitions: low, medium, and high, and, as we mentioned above, the ranges depend on the variant of the Fuzzy Inference System. Below, we show the variants in the membership functions (MFs).

3.1.1. Triangular Membership Functions

The input variable with Triangular MFs is shown in Figure 8.
The range of each membership function in the Phase is listed in Table 2.
In Figure 9, we show the first output variable (ca) with Triangular membership functions.
The range of each membership function in the ca is listed in Table 3 below.
The second output variable (a) with Triangular MFs is shown in Figure 10.
The range of each MF in the “a” variable is listed in Table 4.

3.1.2. Gaussian Membership Functions

The input variable “Phase” with Gaussian membership functions is shown in Figure 11.
The range of each membership function in the Phase is listed in Table 5.
The output variables with Gaussian MFs are illustrated in Figure 12 and Figure 13.
The range of each membership function in the ca is listed in Table 6 below.
In Table 7, the range of each membership function in the a is listed.

3.1.3. Fuzzy Rules

To apply a dynamical adjustment with the Fuzzy Inference System, we are using three Fuzzy rules with the goal of obtaining a decrease in control of the parameters. The Fuzzy rules are shown in Figure 14.

3.1.4. Surfaces

Finally, to verify the optimal performance of the FIS, we added the surfaces of the Fuzzy model showing the behavior of the parameters during algorithm execution. The surfaces are presented in Figure 15 and Figure 16.

3.2. “FisAmplitude” FIS

For the second implemented FIS (FisAmplitude), the differences in reference to the first FIS (FisPacks) are the output variables. For this case, the output variables are amplitude and a, and both variables have a normalized value from 2 to 0.
In Figure 17 and Figure 18, we show the implementation of the Fuzzy Inference Systems.

3.2.1. Triangular Membership Functions

In Figure 19 and Figure 20, we show the output variables in the “FispAmplitude” of the implemented FIS.
The range of the MFs in the amplitude variable are listed in Table 8.
The range for the membership functions in the a variable are listed in Table 9.

3.2.2. Gaussian Membership Functions

Figure 21 and Figure 22 show the amplitude and a with their Gaussian membership functions.
In Table 10, the ranges of the Gaussian membership functions in the amplitude are listed.
The range of membership functions in a are listed in Table 11.

3.2.3. Fuzzy Rules

Figure 23 lists the rules used in the “FisAmplitude” FIS.

3.2.4. Surfaces

Decreasing behavior surfaces of the output variables are shown in Figure 24 and Figure 25.

4. Simulation Results and Discussion

In this section, we present the benchmark functions [22,23,24] that are used in this work in order to verify the improvement of the performance of the hybridization when we used Fuzzy Logic. We also present a statistical summary and a comparison to show the performance of the algorithms and the proposed method.
The first 13 mathematical benchmark functions and their equations are shown in Table 12, which are used for testing the algorithms (Conventional hybridization [25,26] and Fuzzy hybridization [27]). In Figure 26, we are showing the graphical representations in 3D versions of the recently mentioned functions. We can recall that we are not using soft hybridization [28,29], but strong hybridization [30,31].
Another set of mathematical benchmark functions is used, which is called fixed-dimension multimodal and contains nine different functions. The equations of the fixed-dimension multimodal are shown in Table 13, and we also show 3D versions of the graphical representations of the mentioned functions in Figure 27.
The experimentation was realized with the three different configurations that the authors proposed in the conventional hybridization and are the following:
  • Version 1: four packs, six wolves for each pack;
  • Version 2: five packs, six wolves for each pack;
  • Version 3: eight packs, five wolves for each pack.
It is important to mention that in each version, the function evaluations are the same (15,000) in order for the conditions of the methods to be equal. Each algorithm is executed in 32 independent runs to obtain the media and standard deviation. Finally, for comparing the performance of the algorithms, we realized hypothesis tests (Z-test) that we can find in the next tables.

4.1. Comparison between Conventional FWAGWO and F-FWAGWO

In this section, we are summarizing the results that were obtained according to the specifications that we mentioned above. In Table 14, we show the average standard deviation and, finally, the z-value of the hypothesis tests for each function that we analyzed; in this case, for 30 dimensions and version 1, we note that the proposed method is better than the conventional in 3 out of 12 functions, and for the last function, both have the same performance.
In Table 15, we note that in version 2, the Fuzzy method has a better performance in 7 of the 12 benchmarks analyzed.
Finally, for version 3 (Table 16), which has 30 dimensions, the proposed method is better than the conventional method in 8 of the 13 analyzed functions.
In the tables below, we show the three versions presented above, but in this case, the functions have 60 dimensions (the problem is more complex). We note that for 90 dimensions, the proposed method in version 1 has better performance than the conventional method in 6 of the 13 analyzed problems, and the results are presented in Table 17.
In Table 18, we note that for version 2, the FFWAGWO is better than the FWAGWO in 6 of the 13 functions that we analyzed in this work.
Finally, Table 19 shows the z-value of the benchmark functions in 60 dimensions with version 3 of the configuration algorithms, and we note that the proposed method has better performance in 7 of the 13 functions analyzed.
The benchmark functions, according to the mathematical model, have the option of the problem having “n” dimensions or variables among functions 1 and 13 of the benchmark functions. In order to test the proposal, we increased the number of variables in the problem, and in the following tables, we present the functions with 90 dimensions in order to compare the algorithms when the problems are complex.
In Table 20, we note that in version 1, the Fuzzy method has better performance than the conventional method in 4 out of the 13 benchmarks analyzed.
The proposed method in version 2 has a better performance than the conventional method in 8 out of the 13 functions analyzed in this work, as shown in Table 21. Finally, for version 3, the FFWAGWO is better than FWAGWO in 6 out of the 13 functions as we can note in Table 22.
The tests realized when the problem had the flexibility to increase and decrease the number of variables; hence, we analyzed these results and represented them in a graphical way in Figure 28.
The blue bars represent the number of benchmark functions that have better performance than Fuzzy hybridization, and the red bars represent the best performance of the proposed method according to the version or configuration of packs, wolves per pack, and evaluation functions. It is very important to remember that these configurations are the same as proposed in the original work and that we can improve these results with change parameters such as packs and wolves that we can select at the beginning of the algorithm. For this work and according to the Fuzzy proposed method, in general tests, the best versions that improve the results are versions 2 and 3.
Finally, in Table 23, Table 24 and Table 25, we note the results of the proposed Fuzzy method in the functions that we presented in Table 3 to test and prove that the Fuzzy proposed method works with low dimensions.
In order to compare with other recent metaheuristics and hybrid methods, we analyzed the hybrid method that used the same algorithms [32] (Fireworks Algorithm and Grey Wolf Optimizer), and the results are shown in Table 26, Table 27 and Table 28, respectively. We present the comparative results with the mean and standard deviation of the benchmark functions of both proposed methods.

4.2. Control Problem with EF-FWAGWO

In this subsection, we present and apply the Enhanced Hybrid Fuzzy Fireworks and Grey Wolf Metaheuristic Algorithm to a control problem. The results of this case study were obtained using version 3 of the EF-FWAGWO.
The control problem consists of designing a Fuzzy controller for an autonomous mobile robot system using the proposed method (EF-FWAGWO).
We expect to obtain a good performance of the proposed method in achieving the minimization of the error with respect to a pre-established trajectory in the robot. The Fuzzy Hybrid Algorithm is used to obtain the optimal Fuzzy controller that will be able to provide the control actions to the motors.
In Figure 29, we can find the configuration of the robot.
The mobile robot has two wheels with motors and a passive wheel for the stabilization of the system, and their operation is represented by the two following equations:
q   v · + C q , q · v + Dv =   τ + P τ
q ˙ = c o s θ     0 s i n θ     1     0             1   v w
where q = x , y , θ T is the coordinate vector, which describes the position of the robot, v = v , w T is the linear and angular velocity vector, τ = τ 1 , τ 2 is the torque vector applied to the wheels of the robot, where τ 1 and τ 2 represent the right and left wheels, P     R 2 is the uniform disturbance vector, M q   R 2 x 2 is a symmetric and positive matrix, C q , q ˙ v is the vector of centripetal and Coriolis forces, and D   ϵ   R 2 X 2 is a diagonal positive-defined damping matrix.
In addition, the FIS of the mobile robot controller is formed by two input variables and two output variables, respectively. In Figure 30, the FIS is illustrated.
In addition, the FIS of the mobile robot controller is formed by two input variables and two output variables, respectively. In Figure 30, the FIS is shown. The points of the input and output variables are shown in Figure 31 and Figure 32, respectively.
In Figure 31 we are presenting the eleven points to optimizing in the input variable of the FIS.
For the output variable of the FIS was optimized eight points, which are shown in Figure 32.
In this case, to measure the performance of EF-FWA Algorithm in the control problem mentioned above, we are using the mean squared error (MSE), which is represented by the following equation:
MSE = 1 n   i = 1 n X i   Y i 2
Finally, Figure 33 shows the results of the simulations of the robot behavior according to the desired trajectory and the result of the best obtained MSE.
To finish this section, it is important to mention that we can find detailed information on this mobile robot problem in the following paper [33].

5. Conclusions

In this paper, we have presented an enhancement of conventional hybridization between two great algorithms that we can find in the literature and these algorithms are the Fireworks Algorithm and the Grey Wolf Algorithm. In this work, we introduced the utilization of Fuzzy Logic in order to improve the hybridization of the two metaheuristics. We presented the Fuzzy Inference System [32], membership functions, rules, and justification of why this produces the enhancement.
In order to compare the proposed method, we presented the benchmark functions that the conventional hybridization used previously. The benchmarks are classified as unimodal and multimodal; also, we presented the results of the hypothesis tests in order to prove that Fuzzy Logic enhances the performance of the FWA-GWO. In addition, we used the same three versions that were used in the original paper, and, in this case, we noted that according to statistical tests, the versions that have better performance than the conventional ones are versions 2 and 3, respectively. In these versions, the hybridization uses the proposed method with Fuzzy Logic, which means that the enhanced version is better when the number of packs is higher, and the number of wolves is lower for each pack. This behavior is interesting because it proves that the proposed hybridization, in which the main inspiration is to divide the problem into packs, has leaders in these packs, and, finally, the rest of the solutions move according to the leaders of each pack. In addition, we showed the results with multimodal benchmarks, and we noted that the proposed method works with remarkable performance.
On the other hand, comparing methods that are similar or not similar is very complicated because the parameters or data are fuzzy. However, we have made a comparison using a similar hybridization method, and we obtained satisfactory results. The results mentioned above are presented in Table 26, Table 27 and Table 28, which show better precision.
Additionally, we applied the Fuzzy Hybrid Algorithm in a control problem; the results of the control problem using a mobile robot were satisfactory, i.e., we achieved a design of an optimal Fuzzy controller using the EF-FWAGWO algorithm with the goal of providing the control actions to the motors to minimize the error with respect to a pre-established trajectory.
In future work, we plan to consider Interval Type 2 Fuzzy Logic in the Fuzzy Hybrid Algorithm, i.e., we can use an Interval Type 2 FIS to adjust parameters in the mentioned algorithm, as this could enhance uncertainty handling in real problems. Other work could be to adjust the conventional and Fuzzy Hybrid algorithms in clustering or classification problems.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.B. and L.R.; methodology, F.V. and O.C.; software, L.R.; validation, J.B. and L.R.; formal analysis, P.M. and O.C.; investigation, F.V. and P.M.; writing—original draft preparation, J.B. and L.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the support given by TecNM.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Aladwan, F.; Alshraideh, M.; Rasol, M. A Genetic Algorithm Approach for Breaking of Simplified Data Encryption Standard. Int. J. Secur. Its Appl. 2015, 9, 295–304. [Google Scholar]
  2. Can, U.; Alatas, B. Physics based metaheuristic algorithms for global optimization. Am. J. Inf. Sci. Comput. Eng. 2015, 1, 94–106. [Google Scholar]
  3. Melián, B.; Moreno, J. Metaheurísticas: Una visión global. Rev. Iberoam. De Intel. Artif. 2003, 19, 7–28. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bonabeau, E.; Dorigo, M.; Theraulaz, G. Swarm Intelligence: From Natural to Artificial Systems; Oxford University: Oxford, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  5. Mirjalili, S.; Mirjalili, M.; Lewis, A. Grey Wolf Optimizer. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2014, 69, 46–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tan, Y. Fireworks Algorithm; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 355–364. [Google Scholar]
  7. Tan, Y.; Zhu, Y. Fireworks Algorithm for Optimization; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 355–364. [Google Scholar]
  8. Zadeh, L.A. Knowledge Representation in Fuzzy Logic. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 1989, I, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gavrilescu, M.; Floria, S.-A.; Leon, F.; Curteanu, S. A Hybrid Competitive Evolutionary Neural Network Optimization Algorithm for a Regression Problem in Chemical Engineering. Mathematics 2022, 10, 3581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Barraza, J.; Rodríguez, L.; Castillo, O.; Melin, P.; Valdez, F. A New Hybridization Approach between the Fireworks Algorithm and Grey Wolf Optimizer Algorithm. J. Optim. Res. 2018, 2018, 6495362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Abdulmajeed, N.H.; Ayob, M. A Firework Algorithm for Solving Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Technol. 2014, 6, 79–86. [Google Scholar]
  12. Barraza, J.; Valdez, F.; Melin, P.; Gonzalez, C. Fireworks Algorithm (FWA) with Adaptation of Parameters Using Fuzzy Logic. Nat. -Inspired Des. Hybrid Intell. Syst. 2017, 667, 313–327. [Google Scholar]
  13. Muro, C.; Escobedo, R.; Spector, L.; Coppinger, R. Wolf-pack (Canis lupus) hunting strategies emerge from simple rules. Computational simulations. Behav. Process. 2011, 88, 192–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Toolbox FWAGWO, Hybridization between the FWA and GWO Algorithms (2017). Available online: http://www.hafsamx.org/melin/ToolFWAGWO/ (accessed on 18 November 2017).
  15. Wolpert, D.H.; Macready, W.G. No free lunch theorems for optimization. Evolut. Comput. IEEE Trans. 1997, 1, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rodríguez, L.; Castillo, O.; Soria, J. A Study of Parameters of the Grey Wolf Optimizer Algorithm for Dynamic Adaptation with Fuzzy Logic. Nat. -Inspired Des. Hybrid Intell. Syst. 2017, 667, 371–390. [Google Scholar]
  17. Rodriguez, L.; Castillo, O.; Soria, J.; Melin, P.; Valdez, F.; Gonzalez, C.; Martinez, G.; Soto, J. A fuzzy hierarchical operator in the grey wolf optimizer algorithm. Appl. Soft Comput. 2017, 57, 315–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mai, D.S. Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems optimization with swarm algorithms for data classification. In Proceedings of the 2021 13th International Conference on Knowledge and Systems Engineering (KSE), Bangkok, Thailand, 10–12 November 2021; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  19. Abdul-Jaleel, M.; Ali, Y.H.; Ibrahim, N.J. Fuzzy logic and Genetic Algorithm based Text Classification Twitter. In Proceedings of the 2019 2nd Scientific Conference of Computer Sciences (SCCS), Baghdad, Iraq, 27–28 March 2019; pp. 93–98. [Google Scholar]
  20. Precup, R.E.; David, R.C.; Petriu, E.M. Grey wolf optimizer algorithm-based tuning of fuzzy control systems with reduced parametric sensitivity. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electroncs 2017, 64, 527–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Simoes, M.; Bose, K.; Spiegel, J. Fuzzy Logic Based Intelligent Control of a Variable Speed Cage Machine Wind Generation System. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 1997, 12, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Digalakis, J.; Margaritis, K. On benchmarking functions for genetic algorithms. Int. J. Comput. Math. 2001, 77, 481–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Larson, R.; Farber, B. Elementary Statistics Picturing the World; Pearson Education Inc.: London, UK, 2003; pp. 428–433. [Google Scholar]
  24. Molga, M.; Smutnicki, C. Test Functions for Optimization Needs. 2005, pp. 1–43. Available online: https://robertmarks.org/Classes/ENGR5358/Papers/functions.pdf (accessed on 25 April 2024).
  25. Saremi, S.; Mirjalili, S.Z.; Mirjalili, S.M. Evolutionary population dynamics and grey wolf optimizer. Neural Comput. Appl. 2015, 26, 1257–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zheng, Y.; Song, Q.; Chen, S.-Y. Multiobjective fireworks optimization for variable-rate fertilization in oil crop production. Appl. Soft Comput. 2013, 13, 4253–4263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Guillaume, S. Designing fuzzy inference systems from data: An interpretability-oriented review. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2001, 9, 426–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Trojovsky, P.; Dehghani, M. Hybrid leader based optimization: A new stochastic optimization algorithm for solving optimization applications. Sci Rep 2022, 12, 5549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Coma, M.; Tousi, N.M.; Pons-Prats, J.; Bugeda, G.; Bergada, J.M. A New Hybrid Optimization Method, Application to a Single Objective Active Flow Control Test Case. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Knypiński, Ł.; Devarapalli, R.; Gillon, F. The hybrid algorithms in constrained optimization of the permanent magnet motors. IET Sci. Meas. Technol. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yu, X.; Aouari, A.; Mansour, R.F.; Su, S. A hybrid algorithm based on PSO and GA for feature selection. J. Cybersecur. 2021, 3, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yue, Z.; Zhang, S.; Xiao, W. A Novel Hybrid Algorithm Based on Grey Wolf Optimizer and Fireworks Algorithm. Sensors 2020, 20, 2147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kanayama, Y.; Kimura, Y.; Miyazaki, F.; Noguchi, T. A stable tracking control method for an autonomous mobile robot. J. Robot. Syst. 1997, 14, 697–709. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Flow chart of conventional FWA-GWO.
Figure 1. Flow chart of conventional FWA-GWO.
Axioms 13 00424 g001
Figure 2. Example of initialization with 4 packs.
Figure 2. Example of initialization with 4 packs.
Axioms 13 00424 g002
Figure 3. Pseudocode of conventional FWA-GWO.
Figure 3. Pseudocode of conventional FWA-GWO.
Axioms 13 00424 g003
Figure 4. Flow chart of the EF-FWA-GWO.
Figure 4. Flow chart of the EF-FWA-GWO.
Axioms 13 00424 g004
Figure 5. Conditional decision for implementation.
Figure 5. Conditional decision for implementation.
Axioms 13 00424 g005
Figure 6. Triangular FIS “FisPacks”.
Figure 6. Triangular FIS “FisPacks”.
Axioms 13 00424 g006
Figure 7. Gaussian FIS “FisPacks”.
Figure 7. Gaussian FIS “FisPacks”.
Axioms 13 00424 g007
Figure 8. Triangular Input Variable “Phase” in the FIS “FisPacks”.
Figure 8. Triangular Input Variable “Phase” in the FIS “FisPacks”.
Axioms 13 00424 g008
Figure 9. Triangular Output Variable “ca” in the FIS “FisPacks”.
Figure 9. Triangular Output Variable “ca” in the FIS “FisPacks”.
Axioms 13 00424 g009
Figure 10. Triangular Output Variable “a” in the FIS “FisPacks”.
Figure 10. Triangular Output Variable “a” in the FIS “FisPacks”.
Axioms 13 00424 g010
Figure 11. Gaussian Input Variable “Phase” in the FIS “FisPacks”.
Figure 11. Gaussian Input Variable “Phase” in the FIS “FisPacks”.
Axioms 13 00424 g011
Figure 12. Gaussian Input Variable “ca” in the FIS “FisPacks”.
Figure 12. Gaussian Input Variable “ca” in the FIS “FisPacks”.
Axioms 13 00424 g012
Figure 13. Gaussian Input Variable “a” in the FIS “FisPacks”.
Figure 13. Gaussian Input Variable “a” in the FIS “FisPacks”.
Axioms 13 00424 g013
Figure 14. Fuzzy rules in FIS “FisPacks”.
Figure 14. Fuzzy rules in FIS “FisPacks”.
Axioms 13 00424 g014
Figure 15. Surface of “ca” parameter of the first FIS.
Figure 15. Surface of “ca” parameter of the first FIS.
Axioms 13 00424 g015
Figure 16. Surface of “a” parameter of the first FIS.
Figure 16. Surface of “a” parameter of the first FIS.
Axioms 13 00424 g016
Figure 17. Triangular FIS “FisAmplitude”.
Figure 17. Triangular FIS “FisAmplitude”.
Axioms 13 00424 g017
Figure 18. Gaussian FIS “FisAmplitude”.
Figure 18. Gaussian FIS “FisAmplitude”.
Axioms 13 00424 g018
Figure 19. Triangular Output Variable “amplitude” in the FIS “FispAmplitude”.
Figure 19. Triangular Output Variable “amplitude” in the FIS “FispAmplitude”.
Axioms 13 00424 g019
Figure 20. Triangular Output Variable “a” in the FIS “FispAmplitude”.
Figure 20. Triangular Output Variable “a” in the FIS “FispAmplitude”.
Axioms 13 00424 g020
Figure 21. Gaussian Output Variable “amplitude” in the FIS “FispAmplitude”.
Figure 21. Gaussian Output Variable “amplitude” in the FIS “FispAmplitude”.
Axioms 13 00424 g021
Figure 22. Gaussian Output Variable “a” in the FIS “FispAmplitude”.
Figure 22. Gaussian Output Variable “a” in the FIS “FispAmplitude”.
Axioms 13 00424 g022
Figure 23. Fuzzy Rules of “FisAmplitude”.
Figure 23. Fuzzy Rules of “FisAmplitude”.
Axioms 13 00424 g023
Figure 24. Surface of “amplitude” parameter of the second FIS.
Figure 24. Surface of “amplitude” parameter of the second FIS.
Axioms 13 00424 g024
Figure 25. Surface of “a” parameter of the second FIS.
Figure 25. Surface of “a” parameter of the second FIS.
Axioms 13 00424 g025
Figure 26. Graphical representations of benchmark functions.
Figure 26. Graphical representations of benchmark functions.
Axioms 13 00424 g026
Figure 27. Fixed-dimension multimodal mathematical functions in 3D versions.
Figure 27. Fixed-dimension multimodal mathematical functions in 3D versions.
Axioms 13 00424 g027
Figure 28. Results analysis.
Figure 28. Results analysis.
Axioms 13 00424 g028
Figure 29. Autonomous mobile robot model.
Figure 29. Autonomous mobile robot model.
Axioms 13 00424 g029
Figure 30. FIS for the Fuzzy controller.
Figure 30. FIS for the Fuzzy controller.
Axioms 13 00424 g030
Figure 31. Input variable of the FIS in EF-FWAGWO.
Figure 31. Input variable of the FIS in EF-FWAGWO.
Axioms 13 00424 g031
Figure 32. Output variable of the FIS in EF-FWAGWO.
Figure 32. Output variable of the FIS in EF-FWAGWO.
Axioms 13 00424 g032
Figure 33. Best experiment obtained by EF-FWAGWO with a 0.3254 MSE.
Figure 33. Best experiment obtained by EF-FWAGWO with a 0.3254 MSE.
Axioms 13 00424 g033
Table 1. Number of packs during different phases.
Table 1. Number of packs during different phases.
PhaseNumber of Packs
12345678
21122334
31111111
Table 2. Triangular Input Variable “Phase” parameters.
Table 2. Triangular Input Variable “Phase” parameters.
Linguistic ValuesParameters
Low[−0.4, 0, 0.4]
Medium[0.1, 0.5, 0.9]
High[0.6, 1, 1.4]
Table 3. Triangular Output Variable “ca” parameters.
Table 3. Triangular Output Variable “ca” parameters.
Linguistic ValuesParameters
Low[−28.6, −7, 14.6]
Medium[−1.6, 20, 41.6]
High[25.4, 47, 68.6]
Table 4. Triangular Output Variable “a” parameters for first FIS.
Table 4. Triangular Output Variable “a” parameters for first FIS.
Linguistic ValuesParameters
Low[−0.9, 0, 0.9]
Medium[0.225, 1.125, 2.025]
High[1.35, 2.25, 3.15]
Table 5. Gaussian Output Variable “phase” parameters.
Table 5. Gaussian Output Variable “phase” parameters.
Linguistic VariablesParameters
Low[0.1699, 6.93 × 10−18]
Medium[0.1699, 0.5]
High[0.1699, 1]
Table 6. Gaussian Output Variable “ca” parameters.
Table 6. Gaussian Output Variable “ca” parameters.
Linguistic ValuesParameters
Low[9.173, −7]
Medium[9.173, 20]
High[9.173, 40]
Table 7. Gaussian Output Variable “a” parameters.
Table 7. Gaussian Output Variable “a” parameters.
Linguistic VariablesParameters
Low[0.3822, 6.939 × 10−18]
Medium[0.3822, 1.125]
High[0.3822, 2.25]
Table 8. Triangular Output Variable “amplitude” parameters.
Table 8. Triangular Output Variable “amplitude” parameters.
Linguistic ValuesParameters
Low[−0.9, 0, 0.9]
Medium[0.225, 1.125, 0.025]
High[1.35, 2.25, 3.15]
Table 9. Triangular Output Variable “a” parameter in second FIS.
Table 9. Triangular Output Variable “a” parameter in second FIS.
Linguistic ValuesParameters
Low[−0.9, 0, 0.9]
Medium[0.225, 1.125, 0.025]
High[1.35, 2.25, 3.15]
Table 10. Gaussian Output Variable “amplitude” parameters.
Table 10. Gaussian Output Variable “amplitude” parameters.
Linguistic ValuesParameters
Low[0.3822, 6.939 × 10−18]
Medium[0.3822, 1.125]
High[0.3822, 2.25]
Table 11. Gaussian Output Variable “a” parameters.
Table 11. Gaussian Output Variable “a” parameters.
Linguistic VariablesParameters
Low[0.3822, 6.939 × 10−18]
Medium[0.3822, 1.125]
High[0.3822, 2.25]
Table 12. Features of benchmark functions.
Table 12. Features of benchmark functions.
FunctionRangefmin
f 1 x = i = 1 n x i 2 [−100, 100]0
f 2   x = i = 1 n x 1 + i = 1 n x 1 [−100, 100]0
f 3 x = i = 1 n j 1 i x j 2 [−100, 100]0
f 4 x = m a x i     x 1 ,   1 i n   [−100, 100]0
f 5 x = i = 1 n 1 100 x i + 1 x i 2 2 + x 1 1 2 [−100, 100]0
f 6 x = i = 1 n x 1 + 0.5 2 [−100, 100]0
f 7 x = 1 2   i = 1 d x i 4 16 x i 2 + 5 x i [−100, 100]−39.17
f 8 x = i = 1 d / 4 x 4 i 3 + 10 x 4 i 2 2 + 5 x 4 i 1 x 4 i 2   + x 4 i 2 2 x 4 i 1 4 + 10 x 4 i 3 x 4 i 4 [−100, 100]0
f 9 x = i = 1 d x i 2 + i = 1 d 0.5 i x i 2 + i = 1 d 0.5 i x i 4 [−100, 100]0
f 10 x = i = 1 n x i 2 10 cos 2 π x i + 10 [−100, 100]0
f 11 x = 20   e x p ( 0.2 1 n i = 1 n x i 2 )     e x p ( 1 n i = 1 n cos 2 π x i ) + 20 + e [−100, 100]0
f 12 x = π n   10 sin π y 1 + i = 1 n 1 y i 1 2   1 + 10 sin 2 π y y + 1 + y n 1 2   + i = 1 n u x i ,   10 ,   100 ,   4  
  y 1 = 1 + x i + 1 4  
  u x 1 ,   a ,   k ,   m = k x i a m ,             x i > a     0     ,                 a < x i < a           k x i a m   ,         x i < a      
[−100, 100]0
f 13 x = 1 4000 i = 1 n x 1 2 i = 1 n cos x i i + 1 [−100, 100]0
Table 13. Fixed-dimension multimodal functions.
Table 13. Fixed-dimension multimodal functions.
FunctionDimRangefmin
f 14 x = 1 500 + j = 1 25 1 j + i = 2 2 x i a i j 6 1   2[−65, 65]1
f 15 x = i = 1 11 a i x 1 b 1 2 + b i x 2 b 1 2 + b i x 3 + x 4 2 4[−5, 5]0.00030
f 16 x = 4 x 1 2 2.1 x 1 4 + 1 3 x 1 6 + x 1 x 2 4 x 2 2 + 4 x 2 4 2[−5, 5]−1.0316
f 17 x = 1 + x 1 + x 2 + 1 2   19 14 x 1 + 3 x 1 2 14 x 2 + 6 x 1 x 2 + 3 x 2 2 × 30 + 2 x 1 3 x 2 2 × 18 32 x 1 + 12 x 1 2 + 48 x 2 36 x 1 x 2 + 27 x 2 2 2[−2, 2]3
f 18 x = i = 1   4 c 1   e x p j = 1 3 a i j   x j p i j 2 3[1, 3]−3.86
f 19 x = i = 1   4 c 1   e x p j = 1 6 a i j   x j p i j 2 6[0, 1]−3.32
f 20 x = i = 1   5 X a i X a i T + c i   1 4[0, 10]−10.1532
f 21 x = i = 1   7 X a i X a i T + c i   1 4[0, 10]−10.4028
f 22 x = i = 1   10 X a i X a i T + c i   1 4[0, 10]−10.5363
Table 14. Comparison of version 1 between conventional FWA GWO and the Fuzzy FWA-GWO in 30 dimensions.
Table 14. Comparison of version 1 between conventional FWA GWO and the Fuzzy FWA-GWO in 30 dimensions.
FunctionHybrid V1STDHybrid FV1STDZ-Value
F16.43 × 10−281.17 × 10−271.1948 × 10−312.41 × 10−31−3.9240
F21.70 × 10−161.63 × 10−162.13 × 10−182.98 × 10−18−7.3536
F38.47 × 10−40.00253.07 × 10−40.0007−1.4900
F40.03830.05840.00800.0146−3.5971
F527.62830.587827.58330.5480−0.3996
F60.88560.42840.98310.58350.9619
F7−775.890898.3576−751.454799.0596−1.2501
F81.76976.763120.697274.55781.8055
F99641.8011,406.7118,071.9729,673.061.8938
F101.7312.29422.77756.49511.0849
F115.86069.49348.788510.51251.4761
F120.06930.02970.11550.07134.2727
F13000.000.00
Table 15. Comparison of version 2 between conventional FWA GWO and the Fuzzy FWA-GWO in 30 dimensions.
Table 15. Comparison of version 2 between conventional FWA GWO and the Fuzzy FWA-GWO in 30 dimensions.
FunctionHybrid V2STDHybrid FV2STDZ-Value
F11.84 × 10−227.49 × 10−228.4637 × 10−262.8773 × 10−25−1.7536
F21.17 × 10−131.20 × 10−131.84 × 10−151.65 × 10−15−6.8525
F30.00440.01664.19 × 10−40.0007−1.7112
F40.04090.0440.00620.0083−5.5262
F527.52220.527627.76300.74371.8863
F60.57460.31790.68560.41051.5274
F7−811.883398.7647−846.9459114.8316−1.6532
F87.55 × 10−51.91 × 10−43.76 × 10−54.51 × 10−5−1.3791
F915,241.438716,021.87318564.595910,302.3794−2.5032
F101.36272.048510.324619.36693.2863
F111.71 × 10−114.23 × 10−112.62 × 10−133.28 × 10−13−2.8426
F120.07050.03160.12130.11842.9641
F13000.000.00
Table 16. Comparison of version 3 between conventional FWA GWO and the Fuzzy FWA-GWO in 30 dimensions.
Table 16. Comparison of version 3 between conventional FWA GWO and the Fuzzy FWA-GWO in 30 dimensions.
FunctionHybrid V3STDHybrid FV3STDZ-Value
F11.8 × 10−182.7 × 10−185.7 × 10−213.0 × 10−20−4.6926
F24.19 × 10−113.52 × 10−114.58 × 10−135.19 × 10−13−8.4070
F30.00950.02416.50 × 10−40.0017−2.6161
F40.02480.02070.00460.0038−6.8395
F527.70540.584727.62020.5759−0.7418
F60.592970.352810.59040.3383−0.0376
F7−753.7345291.2693−981.3364116.3217−5.1824
F80.15440.69040.00130.0024−1.5838
F96439.1823,019.405305.3810,361.15−0.3208
F103.10663.924410.033918.12462.6677
F111.33 × 10−91.34 × 10−92.67 × 10−113.21 × 10−11−6.9436
F120.04160.02490.02950.0284−2.2874
F139.33 × 10−172.21 × 10−160.000.00−3.0149
Table 17. Comparison of version 1 between conventional FWA GWO and the Fuzzy FWA-GWO in 60 dimensions.
Table 17. Comparison of version 1 between conventional FWA GWO and the Fuzzy FWA-GWO in 60 dimensions.
FunctionHybrid V1STDHybrid FV1STDZ-Value
F16.78 × 10−181.14 × 10−177.92 × 10−203.29 × 10−19−4.1959
F21.55 × 10−111.28 × 10−113.68 × 10−132.20 × 10−13−8.4412
F32.33112.08244.08997.51201.6113
F43.25791.19832.29171.4838−3.6177
F557.96310.731158.06510.66400.7376
F64.31320.77945.01550.91314.1778
F7−1273.7126157.2159−1382.53293.7782−2.3323
F8975.18982020.465260.5314,248.472.1266
F9123,474.29105,804.6137,306.33147,064.200.5452
F105.31256.25649.14218.54932.5815
F1113.314210.05099.533110.6785−1.8413
F120.15710.14230.13230.0836−1.0752
F131.04 × 10−163.11 × 10−160.000.00−2.3881
Table 18. Comparison of version 2 between conventional FWA GWO and the Fuzzy FWA-GWO in 60 dimensions.
Table 18. Comparison of version 2 between conventional FWA GWO and the Fuzzy FWA-GWO in 60 dimensions.
FunctionHybrid V2STDHybrid FV2STDZ-Value
F14.61 × 10−141.31 × 10−131.66 × 10−163.18 × 10−16−2.5041
F22.37 × 10−91.37 × 10−91.36 × 10−108.73 × 10−11−11.6228
F313.789815.338310.555912.5115−1.1668
F41.12510.34690.65000.3190−7.1991
F557.95560.645758.01250.60170.4605
F63.86450.79184.10650.84311.4942
F7−1572.6017164.5944−1446.4868181.88273.6716
F81.939113.68620.03720.2033−0.9923
F997,623.3273,980.79161,436.30194,085.142.1940
F106.84275.162716.070611.32285.2957
F113.68 × 10−71.23 × 10−62.377 × 10−88.097 × 10−8−1.9943
F120.56610.41460.38250.3618−2.3831
F131.07 × 10−142.42 × 10−143.58 × 10−178.30 × 10−17−3.1470
Table 19. Comparison of version 3 between conventional FWA GWO and the Fuzzy FWA-GWO in 60 dimensions.
Table 19. Comparison of version 3 between conventional FWA GWO and the Fuzzy FWA-GWO in 60 dimensions.
FunctionHybrid V3STDHybrid FV3STDZ-Value
F18.17 × 10−111.91 × 10−102.44 × 10−134.59 × 10−13−3.0456
F21.24 × 10−71.01 × 10−74.79 × 10−92.72 × 10−9−8.4257
F33.96145.02262.97455.3663−0.9589
F41.23170.64110.65920.4376−5.2667
F558.56430.519457.97180.7475−4.6488
F64.61161.05653.61021.0798−4.7338
F7−2020.5185251.665−2036.4981121.8630−0.4081
F881.8637197.1147.238112.4364−2.6983
F9231,548.53432,289.99197,193.30269,419.40−0.4817
F1021.670230.896330.622638.95091.2859
F115.10 × 10−69.24 × 10−62.26 × 10−71.87 × 10−7−3.7664
F120.07230.05660.08390.06100.9979
F133.14 × 10−111.31 × 10−105.81 × 10−73.23 × 10−61.2826
Table 20. Comparison of version 1 between conventional FWA GWO and the Fuzzy FWA-GWO in 90 dimensions.
Table 20. Comparison of version 1 between conventional FWA GWO and the Fuzzy FWA-GWO in 90 dimensions.
FunctionHybrid V1STDHybrid FV1STDZ-Value
F13.59 × 10−131.05 × 10−121.31 × 10−152.63 × 10−15−2.4328
F21.71 × 10−99.38 × 10−101.19 × 10−109.03 × 10−11−12.0566
F3170.1456208.229190.2772522.98640.2554
F49.74443.18149.66173.8646−0.1179
F588.87220.457188.61160.3810−3.1269
F68.8691.42239.08721.98270.6386
F7−2958.527123.562−2594.0221281.06498.4784
F832,391.576249,298.1782,287.85162,803.282.0948
F9427,794.09576,474.77340,907.53484,611.35−0.8239
F1019.161520.62623.848721.26351.1300
F1114.83269.808217.20338.29711.3178
F120.44830.54990.07370.0549−4.8404
F136.11 × 10−123.76 × 10−111.34 × 10−145.34 × 10−14−1.1579
Table 21. Comparison of version 2 between conventional FWA GWO and the Fuzzy FWA-GWO in 90 dimensions.
Table 21. Comparison of version 2 between conventional FWA GWO and the Fuzzy FWA-GWO in 90 dimensions.
FunctionHybrid V2STDHybrid FV2STDZ-Value
F13.18 × 10−107.68 × 10−103.63 × 10−124.35 × 10−12−2.9194
F21.45 × 10−71.02 × 10−71.35 × 10−86.96 × 10−9−9.1854
F3218.3702141.9908168.5144152.0538−1.7114
F43.20320.95512.53270.7804−3.8825
F589.56225.103788.40040.3822−1.6212
F69.0381.23089.57031.26162.1568
F7−2382.765133.511−2293.44162.753.0304
F81.3345.11180.04560.1678−1.7990
F9353,505.71442,838.28337,757.79295,953.954−0.2111
F1028.20420.317551.681341.42783.6336
F112.01 × 10−44.50 × 10−46.44 × 10−61.11 × 10−5−3.0867
F121.36410.57790.75420.3633−6.3806
F131.21 × 10−94.38 × 10−92.73 × 10−121.01 × 10−11−1.9684
Table 22. Comparison of version 3 between conventional FWA GWO and the Fuzzy FWA-GWO in 90 dimensions.
Table 22. Comparison of version 3 between conventional FWA GWO and the Fuzzy FWA-GWO in 90 dimensions.
FunctionHybrid V3STDHybrid FV3STDZ-Value
F16.02 × 10−79.58 × 10−73.22 × 10−95.05 × 10−9−4.4636
F24.35 × 10−62.27 × 10−62.86 × 10−71.92 × 10−7−12.7412
F368.999771.644264.583982.3960−0.2888
F43.68781.66073.17301.5990−1.5949
F590.14651.468488.50580.5688−7.4406
F67.54382.5036.56572.0512−2.1584
F7−2485.267427.572−2287.9810169.69563.0627
F8397.2208835.3509115.9959179.6233−2.3505
F9541,955.02846,552.82827,106.07823,110.851.7247
F1064.837163.485968.361862.07390.2835
F113.00 × 10−44.00 × 10−44.28 × 10−51.06 × 10−4−4.4369
F120.24550.72940.40340.58141.2092
F138.60 × 10−74.95 × 10−63.38 × 10−91.34 × 10−8−1.2358
Table 23. Comparison of version 1 between conventional FWA-GWO and Fuzzy FWAGWO with fixed dimensions multimodal functions.
Table 23. Comparison of version 1 between conventional FWA-GWO and Fuzzy FWAGWO with fixed dimensions multimodal functions.
FunctionHybrid V1STDHybrid FV1STD
F142.74992.86263.52153.3115
F157.42 × 10−42.70 × 10−48.06 × 10−44.55 × 10−4
F16−1.03155.60 × 10−4−1.03161.17 × 10−6
F173.00078.20 × 10−43.00077.60 × 10−4
F18−3.86120.0024−3.86110.0024
F19−3.31240.0449−3.31510.0213
F20−5.30930.6601−5.04800.0041
F21−5.23780.5854−5.20160.6736
F22−5.36460.4713−5.21360.4032
Table 24. Comparison of version 2 between conventional FWA-GWO and Fuzzy FWAGWO with fixed dimensions multimodal functions.
Table 24. Comparison of version 2 between conventional FWA-GWO and Fuzzy FWAGWO with fixed dimensions multimodal functions.
FunctionHybrid V2STDHybrid FV2STD
F144.16643.72144.35464.1228
F157.00 × 10−43.18 × 10−48.43 × 10−44.08 × 10−4
F16−1.03162.61 × 10−5−1.03161.98 × 10−4
F173.00099.83 × 10−43.00066.26 × 10−4
F18−3.86120.0022−3.86120.0024
F19−3.30930.0484−3.30450.0566
F20−5.53350.9876−5.05470.0414
F21−5.32050.6697−5.15420.2801
F22−5.50580.7676−5.13890.1022
Table 25. Comparison of version 3 between conventional FWA-GWO and Fuzzy FWAGWO with fixed dimensions multimodal functions.
Table 25. Comparison of version 3 between conventional FWA-GWO and Fuzzy FWAGWO with fixed dimensions multimodal functions.
FunctionHybrid V3STDHybrid FV3STD
F144.16643.72144.35464.1228
F157.00 × 10−43.18 × 10−48.43 × 10−44.08 × 10−4
F16−1.03162.61 × 10−5−1.03161.98 × 10−4
F173.00099.83 × 10−43.00066.26 × 10−4
F18−3.86120.0022−3.86120.0024
F19−3.30930.0484−3.30450.0566
F20−5.53350.9876−5.05470.0414
F21−5.32050.6697−5.15420.2801
F22−5.50580.7676−5.13890.1022
Table 26. Comparison of version 1 between conventional FWGWO and Fuzzy FWAGWO Version 1 with 60 dimensions in benchmark functions.
Table 26. Comparison of version 1 between conventional FWGWO and Fuzzy FWAGWO Version 1 with 60 dimensions in benchmark functions.
FunctionFWGWOSTDHybrid FV1STD
F15.16 × 10−181.93 × 10−167.92 × 10−203.29 × 10−19
F21.740060.10004.08997.5120
F31.02 × 10−33.06 × 10−32.29171.4838
F490.0017.4058.06510.6640
F53.02 × 10−22.42 × 10−25.01550.9131
F94.43 × 10−28.31 × 10−29.14218.5493
F104.21 × 10−105.61 × 10−109.533110.6785
F111.11 × 10−171.20 × 10−160.000.00
F122.13 × 10−36.89 × 10−30.13230.0836
Table 27. Comparison of version 2 between conventional FWGWO and Fuzzy FWAGWO Version 2 with 60 dimensions in benchmark functions.
Table 27. Comparison of version 2 between conventional FWGWO and Fuzzy FWAGWO Version 2 with 60 dimensions in benchmark functions.
FunctionFWGWOSTDHybrid FV2STD
F15.16 × 10−181.93 × 10−161.66 × 10−163.18 × 10−16
F21.740060.100010.555912.5115
F31.02 × 10−33.06 × 10−30.65000.3190
F490.00017.40058.01250.6017
F50.03020.02424.10650.8431
F90.04430.083116.070611.3228
F104.21 × 10−105.61 × 10−102.38 × 10−88.10 × 10−8
F111.11 × 10−171.20 × 10−163.58 × 10−178.30 × 10−17
F122.13 × 10−36.89 × 10−30.38250.3618
Table 28. Comparison of version 3 between conventional FWGWO and Fuzzy FWAGWO Version 2 with 60 dimensions in benchmark functions.
Table 28. Comparison of version 3 between conventional FWGWO and Fuzzy FWAGWO Version 2 with 60 dimensions in benchmark functions.
FunctionFWGWOSTDHybrid FV3STD
F15.16 × 10−181.93 × 10−162.44 × 10−134.59 × 10−13
F21.740060.10002.97455.3663
F31.02 × 10−33.06 × 10−30.65920.4376
F49.00 × 1011.74 × 10157.97180.7475
F53.02 × 10−22.42 × 10−23.61021.0798
F94.43 × 10−28.31 × 10−230.622638.9509
F104.21 × 10−105.61 × 10−102.26 × 10−71.87 × 10−7
F111.11 × 10−171.20 × 10−165.81 × 10−73.23 × 10−6
F122.13 × 10−36.89 × 10−30.08390.0610
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Barraza, J.; Rodríguez, L.; Castillo, O.; Melin, P.; Valdez, F. An Enhanced Fuzzy Hybrid of Fireworks and Grey Wolf Metaheuristic Algorithms. Axioms 2024, 13, 424. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms13070424

AMA Style

Barraza J, Rodríguez L, Castillo O, Melin P, Valdez F. An Enhanced Fuzzy Hybrid of Fireworks and Grey Wolf Metaheuristic Algorithms. Axioms. 2024; 13(7):424. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms13070424

Chicago/Turabian Style

Barraza, Juan, Luis Rodríguez, Oscar Castillo, Patricia Melin, and Fevrier Valdez. 2024. "An Enhanced Fuzzy Hybrid of Fireworks and Grey Wolf Metaheuristic Algorithms" Axioms 13, no. 7: 424. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms13070424

APA Style

Barraza, J., Rodríguez, L., Castillo, O., Melin, P., & Valdez, F. (2024). An Enhanced Fuzzy Hybrid of Fireworks and Grey Wolf Metaheuristic Algorithms. Axioms, 13(7), 424. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms13070424

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop