Table 1 Comparison of optimization performance for benchmark functions
From: Improved fruit fly algorithm on structural optimization
Function | Dimension | Algorithm | Optimal value | Average value | Standard deviation | Running time/s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
\( f_{1} \) | 30 | IA | 37.1543 | 61.3698 | 33.1659 | 5.5329 |
PSO | 16.5998 | 34.6729 | 29.5267 | 3.9532 | ||
FOA | 15.2864 | 20.9341 | 19.5582 | 1.0299 | ||
IAFOA | 14.0958 | 17.9574 | 6.46931 | 1.3621 | ||
\( f_{2} \) | 30 | IA | 2.2763 | 3.5297 | 3.061e−03 | 3.5146 |
PSO | 2.0051 | 2.1193 | 2.796e−03 | 4.2287 | ||
FOA | 1.6849 | 1.9678 | 3.909e−04 | 1.9652 | ||
IAFOA | 0 | 1.0052 | 6.9768e−03 | 0.9537 | ||
\( f_{3} \) | 30 | IA | 2.18e−02 | 4.485e−02 | 3.0702e−01 | 4.7798 |
PSO | 1.96e−02 | 2.073e−01 | 2.785e−01 | 3.5669 | ||
FOA | 1.854e−01 | 1.6941e−01 | 1.1185e−01 | 1.2463 | ||
IAFOA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.6805 | ||
\( f_{4} \) | 30 | IA | 1.952e−04 | 2.327e−04 | 6.001e−01 | 3.534 |
PSO | 1.439e−02 | 2.557e−02 | 5.026e−01 | 4.371 | ||
FOA | 2.005e−02 | 1.363e−01 | 3.778e−02 | 0.988 | ||
IAFOA | 3.958e−03 | 1.564e−05 | 2.563e−02 | 1.015 |