Table 1.

Summary of the related work.

Aproach	Application Type	Strengths	Weaknesses
GWO-TLBO [38]	11 benchmark functions	Consider Time and cost	Throughput not considered
GA [39]	Independent tasks	considering variation in VM performance and acquisition delay	Scalability issue and Throughput not considered
LAGA [1]	Independent tasks	Reduces the failure rate	Makespan and throughput not considered
NGA [8]	Workflow-based tasks	Support for communication delay and application completion time	scalability issue and Throughput not considered
GA vs PSO [40]	Test cases	Compared the performance of both PSO and GA	Makespan and throughput not considered
GELS-PSO [9]	10 well-known test problems	Improve makespan and maximize meeting task deadline	Throughput and ARUR not considered
PSO [41]	independent and workflow-based tasks	Consider both independent and workflow based workload for load balancing	Inertia weight strategy has not considered for analysis
ICDSF [30]	Independent tasks	Makespan, throughput and response time	ARUR not considered
RTPSO-B [42]	Independent tasks	ARUR, makespan, and cost	Throughput not considered
Integer-PSO [43]	Independent tasks	Support for makespan and cost	Throughput and ARUR is not considered and a constant value is used for inertia weight
PSO-BOOST [28]	independent tasks	considered throughput and conflicting parameters like makespan and cost	Role and selection criteria of inertia weight has not explicitly discussed, ARUR not considered
AIWPSO [24]	10 set of benchmark problems	Accuracy and convergence speed	Makespan and throughput not considered
PSO [47]	Workflow based tasks	Average makespan	Throughput and ARUR not considered
MIPSO [48]	Independent tasks	Makespan	Throughput and ARUR not considered