Skip to main content
. 2022 Jul 25;56(3):2563–2605. doi: 10.1007/s10462-022-10233-1

Table 7.

Comparison results of four HHO variants on 18 classical benchmark functions with 30D

Function LHHO HHO-JOS mHHO VGHHO
Mean Std Mean Std Mean Std Mean Std
f1 3.23E-149 5.60E-149 2.64E-261 0 0 0 0 0
f2 1.37E-78 1.49E-78 7.26E-137 1.62E-136 0 0 0 0
f3 5.26E-73 9.11E-73 6.57E-122 1.46E-121 0 0 0 0
f4 7.23E-03 1.10E-02 4.82E-03 5.55E-03 7.68E-02 1.60E-01 4.40E-03 4.43E-03
f5 1.28E-04 1.74E-04 1.21E-04 1.27E-04 7.47E-05 7.17E-05 5.17E-06 1.15E-05
f6 3.64E-151 6.31E-151 6.58E-261 0 0 0 0 0
f7 1.01E-201 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
f8 1.30E-140 2.25E-140 2.22E-247 0 0 0 0 0
f9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
f10 8.88E-16 0 8.88E-16 0 8.88E-16 0 8.88E-16 0
f11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
f12 3.24E-79 4.75E-79 8.99E-138 1.90E-137 0 0 0 0
f13 4.15E-156 5.12E-156 8.80E-244 0 0 0 0 0
f14 1.47E-72 2.53E-72 3.92E-130 8.76E-130 0 0 0 0
f15 1.06E-151 1.80E-151 7.36E-265 0 0 0 0 0
f16 1.26E-154 2.18E-154 6.66E-237 0 0 0 0 0
f17 1.27E-39 1.15E-39 8.88E-74 1.97E-73 0 0 0 0
f18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Average ranking 3.28 2.39 1.22 1.00
Total ranking 4 3 2 1

The best value of each function is highlighted in bold in the table