A novel chaotic transient search

optimization algorithm for global

optimization, real-world engineering
problems and feature selection
Osman Altay and Elif Varol Altay
Software Engineering, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey

ABSTRACT
Metaheuristic optimization algorithms manage the search process to explore search
domains efficiently and are used efficiently in large-scale, complex problems.
Transient Search Algorithm (TSO) is a recently proposed physics-based
metaheuristic method inspired by the transient behavior of switched electrical
circuits containing storage elements such as inductance and capacitance. TSO is still
a new metaheuristic method; it tends to get stuck with local optimal solutions and
offers solutions with low precision and a sluggish convergence rate. In order to
improve the performance of metaheuristic methods, different approaches can be
integrated and methods can be hybridized to achieve faster convergence with high
accuracy by balancing the exploitation and exploration stages. Chaotic maps are
effectively used to improve the performance of metaheuristic methods by escaping
the local optimum and increasing the convergence rate. In this study, chaotic maps
are included in the TSO search process to improve performance and accelerate global
convergence. In order to prevent the slow convergence rate and the classical TSO
algorithm from getting stuck in local solutions, 10 different chaotic maps that
generate chaotic values instead of random values in TSO processes are proposed for
the first time. Thus, ergodicity and non-repeatability are improved, and convergence
speed and accuracy are increased. The performance of Chaotic Transient Search
Algorithm (CTSO) in global optimization was investigated using the IEEE Congress
Submitted 2 February 2023 on Evolutionary Computation (CEC)’17 benchmarking functions. Its performance in
Accepted 19 July 2023 real-world engineering problems was investigated for speed reducer, tension
Published 22 August 2023 compression spring, welded beam design, pressure vessel, and three-bar truss design
Corresponding author problems. In addition, the performance of CTSO as a feature selection method was
Osman Altay, evaluated on 10 different University of California, Irvine (UCI) standard datasets.
[email protected]
The results of the simulation showed that Gaussian and Sinusoidal maps in most of
Academic editor
the comparison functions, Sinusoidal map in most of the real-world engineering
Željko Stević
problems, and finally the generally proposed CTSOs in feature selection outperform
Additional Information and
Declarations can be found on
standard TSO and other competitive metaheuristic methods. Real application results
page 41 demonstrate that the suggested approach is more effective than standard TSO.
DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526
Copyright Subjects Algorithms and Analysis of Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Data Mining and Machine
2023 Altay and Varol Altay Learning, Optimization Theory and Computation
Distributed under Keywords Chaotic transient search optimization algorithm, Chaotic maps, Benchmark functions,
Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 Real-world engineering problems, Feature selection

How to cite this article Altay O, Varol Altay E. 2023. A novel chaotic transient search optimization algorithm for global optimization, real-
world engineering problems and feature selection. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 9:e1526 DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526
 INTRODUCTION
Optimization is the process of identifying the most optimal solution to a problem from
among all possible alternatives. Given the nature of optimization algorithms, they can be
broadly classified into two categories: deterministic algorithms and stochastic intelligent
algorithms. Additionally, stochastic algorithms are categorized into two types: heuristic
algorithms and metaheuristic algorithms (Yang et al., 2012).
Deterministic optimization algorithms are insufficient for large-scale combinatorial and
nonlinear problems. Usually, due to the natural solution mechanisms of deterministic
algorithms, the problem of interest is modeled in such a way that the algorithm handles it.
The solution strategy of deterministic methods usually depends on the types of objectives
and constraints and the types of variables used in modeling the problem. The efficacy of
these methods is significantly influenced by the solution space, the quantity of decision
variables, and the number of constraints involved in problem formulation. An additional
noteworthy limitation is the absence of overarching solution approaches that can be
implemented for problem formulations featuring diverse decision objectives, variables, and
constraints. That is, most algorithms solve models with certain types of objective functions
or constraints. However, optimization problems in many different fields such as
management science, computing, and engineering simultaneously require different types
of decision variables, objective functions, and constraints in their formulation. Therefore,
metaheuristic optimization algorithms have been proposed. These have become very
popular methods in recent years because they have good computational power and are
easy to transform (Bianchi et al., 2009).
Recently, metaheuristic algorithms have gained unexpected popularity. This is because
they have demonstrated their superiority in tackling several optimization challenges.
General-purpose metaheuristic methods are examined in different categories: biology-
based, chemistry-based, mathematics-based, music-based, physics-based, plant-based,
swarm-based, social-based, sports-based, water-based, and hybrid-based (Altay & Alatas,
2020). The emergence of physics-based algorithms was caused by physics phenomena in
nature. The most well-known include Big Bang-Big Crunch (Erol & Eksin, 2006),
electromagnetism-like heuristic (Birbil & Fang, 2003), central force optimization
algorithm (Formato, 2009), multi verse optimization (MVO) (Mirjalili, Mirjalili &
Hatamlou, 2016), galaxy-based search algorithm (Hosseini, 2011), Henry gas solubility
optimization (Hashim et al., 2019), gradient-based optimizer (Ahmadianfar, Bozorg-
Haddad & Chu, 2020), equilibrium optimizer (Faramarzi et al., 2020), flow direction
algorithm (Karami et al., 2021), Archimedes optimization algorithm (Hashim et al., 2021),
transit search algorithm (Mirrashid & Naderpour, 2022), and transient search algorithm
(TSO) (Qais, Hasanien & Alghuwainem, 2020).
Metaheuristic methods are being developed thanks to their simplicity, cheap
computational cost, gradient-free mechanism, and flexibility, and the interest in the use of
these methods is increasing day by day. In this area, there is a theorem called No Free
Lunch (NFL), which proves that there is no general algorithm for solving all optimization
problems and allows this work area to be used actively. It has been mathematically proven

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 2/47
 by the NFL theorem that there is no single optimization method that solves all
optimization algorithms. Thus, while the optimization algorithm produces good results in
solving one problem, it can produce bad results in another. The gap here also encourages
researchers working in this field to produce new methods, improve existing methods, or
hybridize methods by combining them. Another gap is that, due to the stochastic
optimization process, it is very difficult to maintain a balance between exploration and
exploitation in the creation of any metaheuristic algorithm. TSO is a very new physics-
based method inspired by the transient behavior of switched electrical circuits containing
storage elements such as inductance and capacitance. As with other metaheuristic
methods, TSO faces the challenge of achieving the right balance between exploration and
exploitation. This study focuses on finding a solution to this problem, improving the speed
of convergence and the ability of TSO to find the global optimum solution, and ultimately
improving the performance of TSO in terms of various metrics. To the best of our
knowledge, no studies have been done on how to increase global convergence and
performance rates while avoiding trapping TSOs in local solutions. For the first time, chaos
theory has been applied to TSO in this work to eliminate the drawbacks of the method. In
this work, chaotic maps are embedded inside TSO to create novel algorithms known as
chaotic TSO algorithms.
In this study, 10 different chaotic maps were integrated into the TSO algorithm. The
main motivation for the study is to use the number sequences obtained from different
chaotic maps instead of the critical parameters produced by random numbers in the TSO
algorithm. By using chaotic maps with ergodic, irregular, and stochastic features in chaotic
map TSO, it is aimed at avoiding local solutions more easily compared to the TSO method.
In this way, it is aimed to increase global convergence and obtain a better curve by
improving the exploration and exploitation stages of the TSO algorithm. The proposed
method has been applied to the accepted CEC’17 benchmark functions, real-world
engineering design problems, and feature selection in the literature.
The remainder of the article is organized as follows: In the second section, the working
principle of the TSO algorithm is given. In the third section, chaotic maps are examined,
and their equations are given. In the fourth section, the proposed chaotic TSO method is
explained in detail. In the fifth section, the experimental results are given. This part
consists of three separate stages. First of all, the proposed method was tested on the CEC’17
benchmark functions, and statistical analyses were made and supported by figures. Then
the proposed method is adapted to five real-world engineering problems and the
performance analyses of the proposed method and the standard TSO method are
examined. Finally, the proposed methods and the TSO method on feature selection were
adapted and performance analyses were carried out on classification problems. In the last
section, Section 6, the conclusion part is included.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Various optimization methods have been proposed in the literature that can be used in
optimization problems. These methods have become very popular not only in computer
science but also in other research areas (Altay, 2022a). Complex reliability allocation

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 3/47
 problems (Negi et al., 2021), traveling salesman problem (Mzili, Riffi & Mzili, 2022),
association rule mining (Altay & Alatas, 2021), dynamic ship routing and scheduling
problem (Das et al., 2022), laser cutting process (Madić et al., 2022), machine learning
(Altay & Varol, 2023), and process synthesis problem (Altay, 2022b) are some of them.
There are studies comparing the performance of metaheuristic methods (Sadhu et al.,
2023).
There is no best optimization algorithm to solve all problems. While an optimization
algorithm may solve one problem very well, it may not achieve successful results in
another. This encourages researchers to propose new methods and improve existing ones.
When the literature is examined, it is seen that many optimization algorithms have been
proposed. Some of those include the group teaching optimization algorithm (Zhang & Jin,
2020), dwarf mongoose optimization algorithm (Agushaka, Ezugwu & Abualigah, 2022),
chimp optimization algorithm (Khishe & Mosavi, 2020), material generation algorithm
(Talatahari, Azizi & Gandomi, 2021), social mimic optimization algorithm (Balochian &
Baloochian, 2019), arithmetic trigonometric optimization algorithm (Devan et al., 2022),
fertilization optimization algorithm (Devan et al., 2022), African vultures optimization
algorithm (Abdollahzadeh, Gharehchopogh & Mirjalili, 2021), aquila optimizer (Abualigah
et al., 2021b), circle search algorithm (Qais et al., 2022), the water optimization algorithm
(Daliri & Asghari, 2022), and the gold rush optimizer (Zolfi, 2023). The transient search
algorithm is one of the physics-based metaheuristic methods that have emerged recently.
This method has been tested on some problems, but as far as we know, there is no study
related to the development of the method. The fact that it is a new method and that no
improvement has been made in this area yet has been our source of motivation.
It is seen that the transient search algorithm has been successfully used in PEM fuel cell
modeling (Hasanien et al., 2022), IoT intrusion detection system (Fatani et al., 2021),
optimum allocation of more than one distributed generator in the radial electricity
distribution network (Bhadoriya & Gupta, 2022), and improving the voltage ride-through
capability of the wind turbine (Qais & Hasanien, 2020).
Chaos theory has been extensively employed to enhance exploration and exploitation as
nonlinear theory has undergone constant study and improvement. Numerous
metaheuristic algorithms’ premature convergence issues have been effectively resolved
using chaos theory. Many researchers have added chaotic mapping mechanisms to various
metaheuristic algorithms to augment the algorithm’s capacity to find optimum solutions,
improve random diversification, and obtain optimal or sub-optimal answers in
complicated multi-modal circumstances (Arora & Anand, 2019). The application of chaos
theory to different metaheuristic methods can be summarized in Table 1.

TSO ALGORITHM
In this section, the background of the TSO algorithm and the operation of the method are
discussed. Pseudo code of TSO algorithm is given.

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 4/47
 Table 1 Literature review on chaos theorem of metaheuristic methods.
Ref. Year Proposed model Chaotic maps Application
Farah & Belazi (2018) 2018 Jaya algorithm 2D cross chaotic map Benchmark function
Zhang et al. (2018) 2018 Bacterial foraging Logistic map Benchmark function
optimization
Sayed, Khoriba & Haggag (2018) 2018 Salp swarm algorithm Ten different chaotic Benchmark function and feature selection
maps
Tuba et al. (2018) 2018 Elephant herding Two different chaotic Benchmark function
optimization maps
Rizk-Allah, Hassanien & 2018 Crow search algorithm Ten different chaotic Benchmark function and real-world engineering
Bhattacharyya (2018) maps design problem
Kaur & Arora (2018) 2018 Whale optimization Ten different chaotic Benchmark function
algorithm maps
Sayed, Darwish & Hassanien (2018) 2018 Multi-verse optimization Ten different chaotic Real-world engineering design problem
algorithm maps
Arora & Anand (2019) 2018 Grasshopper optimization Ten different chaotic Benchmark function
algorithm maps
Li et al. (2019) 2019 Moth-flame optimization Ten different chaotic Benchmark function and real-world engineering
maps design problem
Sayed, Tharwat & Hassanien (2019) 2019 Dragonfly algorithm Ten different chaotic Feature selection
maps
Demir, Tuncer & Kocamaz (2020) 2020 Chaotic Logistic-sine chaotic Benchmark function and real-world engineering
optimization algorithm map design problem
Bingol & Alatas (2020) 2020 Optics inspired Five different chaotic Benchmark function and real-world engineering
optimization maps design problem
Varol Altay & Alatas (2020) 2020 Bird swarm algorithm Ten different chaotic Benchmark function and real-world engineering
maps design problems
Pierezan et al. (2021) 2020 Coyote optimization Tinkerbell chaotic map Truss optimization problems
algorithm
Gharehchopogh, Maleki & Dizaji 2021 Vortex search algorithm Ten different chaotic Feature selection
(2021) maps
Yang et al. (2021) 2021 Spherical evolution Twelve different Benchmark function
algorithm chaotic maps
Mohammed & Rashid (2021) 2021 Fitness-dependent Ten different chaotic Benchmark function and real-world engineering
optimizer maps design problems
Zhang & Ding (2021) 2021 Sparrow search Logistic map Benchmark function and stochastic configuration
algorithm network
Li et al. (2022) 2021 Arithmetic optimization Ten different chaotic Benchmark function and real-world engineering
algorithm maps design problems
Kutlu Onay & Aydemіr (2022) 2021 Hunger games search Ten different chaotic Benchmark function and real-world engineering
optimization maps design problems
Altay (2022c) 2022 Slime mould optimization Ten different chaotic Benchmark function and real-world engineering
maps design problems
Abualigah & Diabat (2022) 2022 Group search optimizer Five different chaotic Feature selection
maps

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 5/47
 Background of transient search optimization algorithm
The transient performance of electrical circuits has been the inspiration for the
metaheuristic optimization method TSO, which has been proposed in recent years.
Electrical circuits contain different elements that store energy. These can be capacitors (C),
inductors (L), or a combination of both (LC). Generally, an electrical circuit containing a
resistor (R), C, or L has a transient response and a steady-state response. This situation is
shown in Eq. (1). If the electrical circuit contains an energy storage element together with
the resistor, these circuits are classified as first-order circuits. If there are two energy
storage elements next to the resistor in the electrical circuit, they are called second-order
circuits. The switching of such circuits cannot be changed until the steady-state values of R
and L are reached. The transient response of the first-order circuit is calculated by the
differential equation in Eq. (2). Equation (2) can be solved to find the solution of xðt Þ
shown in Eq. (3).
Complete response ¼ Transient response þ Final response (1)
d x ðt Þ
xðt Þ þ ¼K (2)
dt s
t
xðt Þ ¼ xð1Þ þ ðxð0Þ  xð1ÞÞe s (3)
where time t, xðt Þ can be called the capacitor voltage vðt Þ of the RC circuit or the inductor
current iðt Þ of the RL circuit. s is called the time constant of the circuit. s ¼ RC and
s ¼ L=R are for circuit RC and RL, respectively, and K is a constant based on the initial
value of xð0Þ. xð1Þ is the final response value. The transient response of a quadratic circuit
is calculated using the differential equation shown in Eq. (4). The solution of the quadratic
differential equation is shown in Eq. (5). Here, the response of the RLC circuit is
considered a low-damped response.

d2 d
2
xðt Þ þ 2a xðt Þ þ w20 x ðt Þ ¼ f ðt Þ (4)
dt dt
xðt Þ ¼ eat ðB1 cosðð2pfd t ÞÞ þ B2 ðð2pfd t ÞÞÞ þ xð1Þ (5)
where a is the damping coefficient, w0 is the resonant frequency, fd is the damped
resonance frequency, and B1 ve B2 are fixed values. The low damped response occurs when
a < w0 causes damped oscillations of the transient response of the RLC circuit.

Transient optimization algorithm

The working logic of the TSO algorithm is similar to the working logic of other
metaheuristic optimization algorithms and consists of three steps. In the first of these steps,
the initial population is created by creating search agents within the lower and upper limits
of the exploration area. The second step is called the exploration phase. In this step, the
best solution is sought. The third and final step is called the exploitation stage, and it is
aimed at reaching a steady state or the best solution. Search agents in the initial population
are randomly generated as in Eq. (6).
Y ¼ lb þ rand  ðub  lbÞ (6)

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 6/47
 Algorithm 1 Pseudo-code of TSO algorithm.
Initialize the population and the best positions Yl , Yl
Evaluate the cost function of the population
while l < Lmax
Update the values of T and C1 using Eqs. (8) and (9)
do all populations Yl
Update the population place by Eq. (7)
end do
Calculate the cost function of all new population
Update the best value if the recent cost function is less than the previous best cost function
l ¼lþ1
end while
Output the best value Yl

where the lb value represents the lower limit of the search area, and the ub value the upper
limit of the search area. The rand value represents a uniformly distributed random
sequence of numbers. The second step, the discovery phase, is designed by inspired by the
oscillations of the second order RLC circuits around zero. However, the use of TSO here is
inspired by the exponential decay of the first order discharge. The r1 value, which is a
random number, is used to balance the exploration (r1  0:5) and exploitation ðr1 < 0:5Þ
phases. The use and mathematical model of TSO is shown in Eq. (7), inspired by Eqs. (3)
and (5). TSO’s best solution Yl , simulates the steady state or final value ðxð1ÞÞ of the



electrical circuit, also B1 ¼ B2 ¼
Yl  C1 :Yl
.
   
Yl þ Yl  C1 :Y1 eT ;

r1 , 0:5
f ðxÞ ¼ (7)
Yl þ eT ½cosð2pT Þ þ sinð2pT Þ
Yl  C1 :Yl
; r1  0:5
T ¼ 2  z  r2  z (8)
C1 ¼ k  z  r 3 þ 1 (9)
 
z ¼ 2  2 l=Lmax (10)

In Eq. (10), z represents a value ranging from 2 to 0 as understood from the equation.
The value l represents the number of iterations, T and C1 are random coefficients, r1 , r2
and r3 are evenly distributed random numbers and take values between 0 and 1. Yl
indicates the best position, k is a constant and Lmax is the maximum number of iterations.
The balance between exploration and exploitation processes is achieved with a T
coefficient ranging from −2 to 2. Exploitation phase is obtained when T > 0 (to the
smallest value) and exploration process is obtained when T < 0 (to the highest value). The
pseudo-code of TSO is given in Algorithm 1.

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 7/47
 CHAOTIC MAPS
In a nonlinear, dynamical system that is non-periodic, non-convergent, and bounded,
chaos is a deterministic, random-like technique. Chaos is the randomness of a
straightforward deterministic dynamical system in mathematics, and chaotic systems can
be thought of as sources of randomness. Although chaos appears random and
unpredictable, it also has a certain degree of pattern. Instead of using random variables,
chaos uses chaotic variables (Arora & Anand, 2019).
Numbers generated by chaotic maps have been used successfully in a variety of
applications. In general, chaotic maps have three basic qualities: ergodicity, beginning
conditions, and semi-stochastic properties. Researchers in a variety of domains, including
ecology, medicine, economics, and engineering applications, are drawn to chaotic
processes. It is also extensively utilized to improve the performance of optimization
algorithms (Altay, 2022c).
The effectiveness of swarm intelligence algorithms in tackling a variety of challenging
optimization issues has been demonstrated. As a result, further developing these
algorithms became a hotly debated scientific subject. The use of chaotic maps in place of
random values in swarm intelligence algorithms is one of the more frequently employed
innovations. Improved search is anticipated because chaotic maps produce numbers that
are non-repeatable and ergodic (Tuba et al., 2018).
Chaotic map applications have proven successful in enhancing the stochastic structure
of the optimization techniques in a variety of research. The standard TSO’s global
convergence time was accelerated in this work by the introduction of ten separate chaotic
maps, which also prevented the standard TSO from being stuck in local solutions. There
are many types of chaotic maps that are employed, including the gauss, circle, sine, logistic,
piecewise, iterative, singer, tent, and sinusoidal maps. Table 2 presents an explanation of
the variables and equations linked to these chaotic maps. The graphics of the ten chaotic
maps are shown in Fig. 1.

CHAOTIC TSO ALGORITHM

Metaheuristic optimization algorithms suffer from population diversity and early
convergence. In addition, the metaheuristic optimization algorithm needs a balance
between exploration and exploitation in order to produce an effective solution. Chaotic
maps are one of the most effective ways to increase population diversity and the quality of
metaheuristic optimization methods. Thus, both the search sensitivity and convergence
speed of the metaheuristic optimization method, which are improved with the chaotic
map, are improved. Most metaheuristic optimization methods have an exploration and
exploitation phase. The exploration phase is used to search the search area as wide as
possible, regardless of whether the method is stuck at the local optimum. In the
exploitation phase, the method aims to find the best possible solution in a limited area of
the search space by finding the most promising area. While the method spends too much
time on the exploitation process, which only leads to a local search, spending too much
time on the exploration process results in a random search.

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 8/47
 Table 2 Variables and equations of chaotic maps.
CM no. CM name CM equation
1 Chebyshev map Xnþ1 ¼ cosðkcos1 xn Þ
a
2 Circle map Xnþ1 ¼ Xn þ b  sinð2pXn Þmod ð1Þ a ¼ 0:5 and b ¼ 0:2
2p
8
3 Gauss map < 0;
> Xn ¼ 0
1 1 1
Xnþ1 ¼ 1 , ¼ 
>
: ; Xn 2 ð0; 1Þ X n mod ð 1Þ Xn X n
Xn modð1Þ

4 Iterative map ap
Xnþ1 ¼ sin , a ¼ 0:7
xn
5 Logistic map Xnþ1 ¼ aXn ð1  Xn Þ, a ¼ 4
8 x
6 Piecewise map >
>
n
; 0  xn , P
>
>
>
>
P
>
> xn  P
>
>
< 0:5  P ; P  xn , 0:5
>
xnþ1 ¼ , P ¼ 0:4
> 1  P  xn
>
>
> ; 0:5  x , 1  P
>
> 0:5  P
n
>
>
>
> 1  xn
>
: ; 1  P  xn , 1
P
7 Sine map a
Xnþ1 ¼ sinðpxn Þ, 0 < a  4
4
 
8 Singer map Xnþ1 ¼ m 7:86xn  23:31xn2 þ 28:75xn3  13:302875xn4 , µ = 1.07
9 Sinusoidal map Xnþ1 ¼ axn2 sinðpXn Þ, a ¼ 2:3 and X0 ¼ 0:7

10 Tent map Xn =0:7; Xn , 0
f ðx Þ ¼
10=3 Xn ð1  Xn Þ; otherwise

Although the newly proposed TSO algorithm has been successfully applied in different
applications in the literature, it has some disadvantages, as we mentioned above. Therefore,
in order to improve the search space of the TSO algorithm, chaotic maps, which are
accepted in the literature, have been added to the dynamic behavior and optimization
algorithms to make the search space stronger. Equation (7) is used for exploration and
exploitation in the TSO algorithm, whose working principle is very clear. Random
variables affecting Eq. (7) are regular random variable values r2 and r3 in Eqs. (8) and (9),
respectively. In this study, instead of the r3 value, which is the stochastic component of the
TSO algorithm in Eq. (9), chaotic maps with different mathematical equations listed in
Table 2 were applied. The mathematical equation is shown in the equation below.
C1 ¼ k  z  CMV þ 1 (11)

Here, CMV, that is, sequentially generated chaotic map value is used instead of r3 value.
Proposed algorithms using 10 different chaotic map; chebyshev map (CTSO-1), circle map
(CTSO-2), gauss map (CTSO-3), iterative map (CTSO-4), logistic map (CTSO-5),
piecewise map (CTSO-6), sine map (CTSO-7), singer map (CTSO-8), sinusoidal map
(CTSO-9) and tent map (CTSO-10). The flowchart of the CTSO is shown in Fig. 2.

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 9/47
 Figure 1 Demonstration of chaotic maps. Full-size  DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526/fig-1

Also, the complexity of the proposed CTSO algorithms can be expressed using big-oh
notation. The process of the CTSO algorithm starts with the random generation of search
agents in the first step, evaluates the search agents using the cost function in the second
step, and updates the search agents to the function evaluation value in the third step. Here,
the first step is denoted by OðN Þ, where N is the number of search agents. In the second
step, the search agents enter the while loop, which has the maximum iteration (Lmax ). The
complexity of function evaluations of all search agents is expressed as OðN  Lmax Þ. And
finally, in the third step, the complexity of updating all search agents with a size ðDÞ for
total iterations is expressed as OðN  Lmax  DÞ.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In order to evaluate the performance of the methods proposed in the study, CEC’17 test
functions, five different real-world problems, and feature selection problems consisting of
10 different real-world datasets were applied. The results obtained were compared in detail
under this section and the performance analyses of the methods were carried out. In all
tables, the use of bold demonstrates the best result attained. TSO and CTSOs are taken as
constant parameters with k value of 1 and z value of ½0; 2. The experimental tests are

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 10/47
 Figure 2 Flowchart of CTSOs. Full-size  DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526/fig-2

performed using MATLAB R2021a and the whole test is executed on a PC (Intel (R) Core
(TM) i9–10900k CPU @ 3.70 GHz (10 CPUs), 32 GB, Windows 10–64 bits).

Benchmark function
The performance evaluation of ten distinct CTSO and TSO methods was conducted using
the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC) test functions. The CEC’17 test
suite comprises a total of 29 test functions, encompassing a diverse range of function types
such as unimodal, multimodal, hybrid, and composition functions. The algorithm’s
convergence performance is assessed using unimodal functions, namely f1 and f3, while
the presence of early convergence and local fixation issues is evaluated using multimodal

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 11/47
 functions, specifically f4 through f10. The assessment of the capacity to evade local optima,
which are characterized by numerous local optima, and the equilibrium between
exploration and exploitation is carried out through the utilization of hybrid and
composition functions (f11–f20 and f21–f30).
The lower and upper bounds of all functions included in the CEC’17 test suite are
between −100 and 100. In order to make a fair evaluation under equal conditions, the
number of evaluations was chosen as 1,000 and the population as 30. Algorithms were run
30 times in all experiments, and the results of mean (AVG), standard deviation (STD),
minimum (MIN), and Friedman mean rank (MR) values are presented in Tables 3A–3C in
a comparative manner. According to the MR value, CTSO-9 and CTSO-5 showed the best
performance in unimodal benchmark functions. Of the multimodal functions, CTSO-3
showed the best performance in 3, CTSO-9 in 2, CTSO-3 and CTSO-9 in 1, and CTSO-5 in
1 of them. Of the hybrid and composition functions, CTSO-3 showed the best
performance in 11, CTSO-9 in 6, CTSO-3 and CTSO-9 in 2, and CTSO-10 in 1 of them. In
Table 4, the average Friedman mean rank values based on the MR values of all benchmark
functions are given. When Table 4 is examined according to the statistical analysis results,
CTSO-3 gives the best performance, followed by CTSO-9 with a close value. CTSO-8
performed worse than the original TSO. The convergence performance of the algorithms
on the CEC’17 test functions is also given in Fig. 3 according to the best values of the
algorithms. Figure 4 presents a boxplot of CEC’17 test functions.
The results of the fitness functions obtained using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test are given
in Table 5. The results obtained were obtained at a significance level of five percent. The
results obtained must be less than 0.05 to show a significant advantage. The △, ▽, and ≈
signs in the table indicate the superiority of one of the proposed CTSOs, the TSO is
superior, and there is no significant difference between the methods, respectively. When the
Table 5 is examined, it is seen that CTSO-3 and CTSO-9 show the best performances by
providing superiority to TSO in 26 functions. It can be said that Gaussian and sinusoidal
chaotic maps are superior to other chaotic maps and standard TSO in benchmark
functions.

Real-world engineering problems

In this section, five real-world engineering design problems are used to validate the search
performance of each implemented algorithm. These problems are the speed reducer
problem, tension compression spring design problem, welded beam design problem,
pressure vessel, and three-bar truss design problem. All these problems are limited in
nature, and therefore an external penalty approach mechanism was used to solve the
design constraints. The maximum number of iterations for all problems was determined to
be 1,000 and the population number was 30. The algorithm parameters are the values used
in CEC’17. To visualize and compare the convergence behavior of the examined
algorithms, the best fitness values obtained for each problem, which are usually called
convergence curves, are drawn. All experiments corresponding to each algorithm were run
independently 30 times. The best, mean, worst, and standard deviation values were

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 12/47
 Table 3 Experimental results on CEC’17 test functions.
Table 3-A

Algorithm AVG STD MIN MR Algorithm AVG STD MIN MR

f1 f3
TSO 4.95E+10 8.21E+09 2.48E+10 7.20 TSO 9.11E+04 3.47E+03 8.10E+04 5.47
CTSO-1 4.92E+10 8.39E+09 3.13E+10 7.13 CTSO-1 9.14E+04 3.08E+03 8.21E+04 5.13
CTSO-2 4.99E+10 8.71E+09 3.24E+10 7.33 CTSO-2 9.09E+04 3.33E+03 8.32E+04 5.10
CTSO-3 1.57E+08 1.45E+08 1.86E+07 1.53 CTSO-3 1.55E+05 6.93E+04 6.08E+04 9.30
CTSO-4 4.79E+10 6.77E+09 3.44E+10 6.33 CTSO-4 9.13E+04 5.09E+03 7.18E+04 6.27
CTSO-5 4.97E+10 7.32E+09 3.54E+10 6.87 CTSO-5 9.02E+04 5.42E+03 6.97E+04 4.77
CTSO-6 4.96E+10 7.20E+09 3.52E+10 6.90 CTSO-6 9.19E+04 2.38E+03 8.70E+04 5.53
CTSO-7 4.98E+10 9.49E+09 2.63E+10 7.20 CTSO-7 9.06E+04 4.41E+03 7.63E+04 5.03
CTSO-8 5.01E+10 9.07E+09 3.54E+10 6.80 CTSO-8 9.04E+04 6.25E+03 6.91E+04 5.53
CTSO-9 1.83E+08 2.95E+08 3.75E+07 1.47 CTSO-9 1.36E+05 4.90E+04 6.55E+04 8.90
CTSO-10 4.95E+10 8.31E+09 3.34E+10 7.23 CTSO-10 9.13E+04 3.25E+03 8.17E+04 4.97
f4 f5
TSO 1.23E+04 3.21E+03 4.76E+03 7.17 TSO 9.12E+02 3.32E+01 8.37E+02 6.57
CTSO-1 1.19E+04 2.29E+03 7.99E+03 6.67 CTSO-1 9.19E+02 3.13E+01 8.51E+02 7.77
CTSO-2 1.20E+04 2.21E+03 7.98E+03 6.83 CTSO-2 9.06E+02 4.49E+01 8.16E+02 6.30
CTSO-3 6.16E+02 6.91E+01 5.26E+02 1.50 CTSO-3 7.94E+02 4.53E+01 7.10E+02 1.77
CTSO-4 1.25E+04 2.95E+03 8.86E+03 7.30 CTSO-4 9.16E+02 3.51E+01 8.30E+02 7.23
CTSO-5 1.13E+04 3.14E+03 5.83E+03 6.20 CTSO-5 9.09E+02 3.83E+01 7.97E+02 6.77
CTSO-6 1.23E+04 2.99E+03 7.30E+03 7.47 CTSO-6 9.17E+02 3.78E+01 8.13E+02 7.63
CTSO-7 1.24E+04 3.15E+03 7.15E+03 7.13 CTSO-7 9.07E+02 3.14E+01 8.41E+02 6.23
CTSO-8 1.31E+04 2.72E+03 8.01E+03 7.83 CTSO-8 9.20E+02 2.67E+01 8.76E+02 7.43
CTSO-9 6.07E+02 4.59E+01 4.94E+02 1.50 CTSO-9 7.83E+02 5.52E+01 6.87E+02 1.73
CTSO-10 1.17E+04 3.39E+03 6.65E+03 6.40 CTSO-10 9.10E+02 2.71E+01 8.34E+02 6.57
f6 f7
TSO 6.85E+02 8.78E+00 6.59E+02 7.23 TSO 1.44E+03 5.86E+01 1.31E+03 6.73
CTSO-1 6.83E+02 8.22E+00 6.64E+02 6.17 CTSO-1 1.43E+03 5.71E+01 1.31E+03 5.97
CTSO-2 6.82E+02 7.18E+00 6.67E+02 5.97 CTSO-2 1.43E+03 6.92E+01 1.24E+03 6.03
CTSO-3 6.67E+02 1.08E+01 6.47E+02 2.17 CTSO-3 1.46E+03 1.27E+02 1.25E+03 6.70
CTSO-4 6.83E+02 7.81E+00 6.66E+02 6.07 CTSO-4 1.43E+03 5.07E+01 1.26E+03 5.87
CTSO-5 6.86E+02 8.16E+00 6.64E+02 7.17 CTSO-5 1.41E+03 7.34E+01 1.25E+03 4.70
CTSO-6 6.84E+02 1.02E+01 6.64E+02 6.37 CTSO-6 1.43E+03 5.70E+01 1.30E+03 6.23
CTSO-7 6.87E+02 8.70E+00 6.61E+02 7.73 CTSO-7 1.42E+03 6.65E+01 1.22E+03 5.30
CTSO-8 6.86E+02 6.16E+00 6.75E+02 7.20 CTSO-8 1.43E+03 5.03E+01 1.31E+03 5.80
CTSO-9 6.70E+02 1.04E+01 6.52E+02 2.73 CTSO-9 1.44E+03 1.36E+02 1.18E+03 6.10
CTSO-10 6.86E+02 7.40E+00 6.69E+02 7.20 CTSO-10 1.45E+03 5.05E+01 1.30E+03 6.57
f8 f9
TSO 1.12E+03 2.52E+01 1.08E+03 6.63 TSO 1.05E+04 1.34E+03 8.17E+03 7.13
CTSO-1 1.12E+03 3.33E+01 1.04E+03 6.50 CTSO-1 1.03E+04 1.32E+03 7.94E+03 6.70
CTSO-2 1.13E+03 2.10E+01 1.09E+03 7.93 CTSO-2 1.04E+04 1.07E+03 8.43E+03 6.87
(Continued )

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 13/47
 Table 3 (continued )
Table 3-A

Algorithm AVG STD MIN MR Algorithm AVG STD MIN MR

CTSO-3 1.01E+03 4.72E+01 9.17E+02 1.73 CTSO-3 7.25E+03 1.57E+03 4.58E+03 2.00
CTSO-4 1.12E+03 2.95E+01 1.07E+03 6.43 CTSO-4 1.01E+04 1.31E+03 6.02E+03 6.30
CTSO-5 1.11E+03 3.19E+01 1.02E+03 5.63 CTSO-5 1.03E+04 1.23E+03 7.82E+03 7.07
CTSO-6 1.13E+03 2.50E+01 1.07E+03 7.37 CTSO-6 1.03E+04 1.19E+03 7.59E+03 7.10
CTSO-7 1.13E+03 2.54E+01 1.05E+03 6.97 CTSO-7 1.05E+04 1.44E+03 7.58E+03 6.70
CTSO-8 1.13E+03 2.69E+01 1.08E+03 7.73 CTSO-8 1.08E+04 1.46E+03 7.90E+03 7.73
CTSO-9 1.01E+03 4.35E+01 9.09E+02 1.50 CTSO-9 7.43E+03 1.65E+03 4.89E+03 2.40
CTSO-10 1.13E+03 1.82E+01 1.10E+03 7.57 CTSO-10 9.85E+03 1.47E+03 7.05E+03 6.00
f10 f11
TSO 8.69E+03 5.78E+02 7.64E+03 5.73 TSO 9.85E+03 3.09E+03 4.06E+03 6.40
CTSO-1 8.95E+03 6.98E+02 7.58E+03 6.83 CTSO-1 1.05E+04 2.80E+03 5.00E+03 7.07
CTSO-2 8.83E+03 8.47E+02 7.30E+03 6.77 CTSO-2 9.79E+03 2.15E+03 6.53E+03 6.77
CTSO-3 6.73E+03 1.33E+03 4.70E+03 2.37 CTSO-3 1.68E+03 3.27E+02 1.24E+03 1.40
CTSO-4 8.86E+03 5.27E+02 8.05E+03 6.43 CTSO-4 1.04E+04 2.00E+03 6.26E+03 7.10
CTSO-5 9.01E+03 6.78E+02 7.64E+03 7.40 CTSO-5 1.01E+04 2.33E+03 3.00E+03 7.20
CTSO-6 8.99E+03 7.03E+02 7.82E+03 7.33 CTSO-6 9.57E+03 2.20E+03 4.63E+03 6.60
CTSO-7 8.49E+03 5.62E+02 7.30E+03 5.40 CTSO-7 1.01E+04 2.73E+03 4.57E+03 6.90
CTSO-8 8.93E+03 7.24E+02 7.33E+03 7.27 CTSO-8 1.04E+04 2.16E+03 5.38E+03 7.50
CTSO-9 7.66E+03 1.41E+03 4.85E+03 4.03 CTSO-9 2.52E+03 2.84E+03 1.33E+03 1.90
CTSO-10 8.81E+03 6.64E+02 7.56E+03 6.43 CTSO-10 1.01E+04 1.77E+03 7.43E+03 7.17
Table 3-B

Algorithm AVG STD MIN MR Algorithm AVG STD MIN MR

f12 f13
TSO 1.01E+10 4.02E+09 3.60E+09 7.70 TSO 2.70E+09 3.49E+09 2.27E+08 6.57
CTSO-1 7.78E+09 3.34E+09 2.90E+09 6.20 CTSO-1 2.53E+09 3.16E+09 4.33E+08 7.50
CTSO-2 8.51E+09 3.52E+09 2.90E+09 6.70 CTSO-2 2.84E+09 4.16E+09 6.69E+07 7.00
CTSO-3 2.04E+07 2.31E+07 6.18E+05 1.53 CTSO-3 5.68E+04 4.66E+04 1.14E+04 1.33
CTSO-4 8.93E+09 3.95E+09 2.87E+09 6.90 CTSO-4 2.46E+09 3.43E+09 8.13E+07 6.57
CTSO-5 8.59E+09 3.59E+09 3.45E+09 6.57 CTSO-5 2.92E+09 3.56E+09 7.57E+08 7.53
CTSO-6 9.35E+09 3.31E+09 3.23E+09 7.30 CTSO-6 1.89E+09 2.52E+09 1.55E+08 6.40
CTSO-7 9.48E+09 4.68E+09 3.75E+09 7.20 CTSO-7 2.27E+09 2.67E+09 1.58E+08 6.70
CTSO-8 9.97E+09 4.17E+09 3.87E+09 7.43 CTSO-8 2.98E+09 4.32E+09 1.60E+08 7.20
CTSO-9 2.47E+07 3.62E+07 1.01E+06 1.47 CTSO-9 4.67E+07 2.36E+08 1.40E+04 1.80
CTSO-10 9.12E+09 3.70E+09 3.15E+09 7.00 CTSO-10 3.02E+09 3.45E+09 2.00E+08 7.40
f14 f15
TSO 7.27E+06 5.82E+06 3.40E+05 7.27 TSO 4.34E+08 6.96E+08 7.91E+06 6.07
CTSO-1 1.01E+07 2.04E+07 1.53E+05 6.33 CTSO-1 5.47E+08 5.45E+08 1.82E+06 7.47
CTSO-2 7.56E+06 1.02E+07 2.16E+05 7.27 CTSO-2 4.20E+08 4.48E+08 2.70E+07 6.97
CTSO-3 1.45E+06 3.77E+06 3.86E+03 2.43 CTSO-3 1.64E+04 1.28E+04 3.64E+03 1.50

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 14/47
 Table 3 (continued )
Table 3-B

Algorithm AVG STD MIN MR Algorithm AVG STD MIN MR

CTSO-4 5.56E+06 5.02E+06 4.65E+05 6.57 CTSO-4 4.58E+08 5.59E+08 1.23E+07 7.20
CTSO-5 6.28E+06 5.64E+06 2.45E+05 6.73 CTSO-5 5.61E+08 7.55E+08 6.00E+06 7.17
CTSO-6 8.11E+06 7.55E+06 2.68E+05 7.50 CTSO-6 3.62E+08 5.47E+08 1.49E+07 6.33
CTSO-7 4.99E+06 3.97E+06 3.18E+05 6.07 CTSO-7 4.26E+08 3.91E+08 1.32E+07 7.40
CTSO-8 7.43E+06 7.47E+06 8.20E+04 6.57 CTSO-8 5.19E+08 5.05E+08 2.04E+07 7.80
CTSO-9 9.26E+05 1.87E+06 5.91E+03 2.33 CTSO-9 1.69E+04 1.30E+04 2.28E+03 1.50
CTSO-10 1.21E+07 3.24E+07 2.11E+05 6.93 CTSO-10 3.68E+08 4.55E+08 4.16E+06 6.60
f16 f17
TSO 5.48E+03 9.37E+02 8.03E+03 7.17 TSO 3.45E+03 7.68E+02 2.30E+03 7.00
CTSO-1 5.74E+03 1.07E+03 8.56E+03 7.43 CTSO-1 4.19E+03 4.53E+03 2.48E+03 6.43
CTSO-2 5.17E+03 9.01E+02 7.32E+03 6.30 CTSO-2 3.50E+03 1.28E+03 2.64E+03 5.47
CTSO-3 3.55E+03 7.81E+02 5.57E+03 2.07 CTSO-3 2.74E+03 3.60E+02 2.14E+03 3.00
CTSO-4 5.58E+03 1.08E+03 7.68E+03 6.97 CTSO-4 4.32E+03 3.29E+03 2.02E+03 6.93
CTSO-5 5.16E+03 6.95E+02 6.30E+03 6.37 CTSO-5 3.35E+03 8.24E+02 2.63E+03 6.23
CTSO-6 5.53E+03 9.81E+02 8.44E+03 7.13 CTSO-6 3.56E+03 1.03E+03 2.42E+03 6.20
CTSO-7 5.71E+03 1.05E+03 7.73E+03 7.37 CTSO-7 5.03E+03 6.07E+03 2.42E+03 6.20
CTSO-8 5.44E+03 9.72E+02 8.31E+03 6.57 CTSO-8 4.64E+03 4.14E+03 2.47E+03 7.37
CTSO-9 3.49E+03 6.43E+02 5.33E+03 1.93 CTSO-9 2.94E+03 3.69E+02 2.29E+03 4.53
CTSO-10 5.29E+03 1.03E+03 7.54E+03 6.70 CTSO-10 4.58E+03 4.16E+03 2.58E+03 6.63
f18 f19
TSO 9.48E+07 1.03E+08 5.85E+06 7.57 TSO 4.94E+08 4.74E+08 1.90E+07 6.77
CTSO-1 6.32E+07 6.84E+07 1.73E+06 6.67 CTSO-1 3.97E+08 3.36E+08 2.65E+07 6.60
CTSO-2 7.71E+07 9.13E+07 1.58E+06 6.90 CTSO-2 3.78E+08 3.98E+08 2.84E+07 5.97
CTSO-3 1.20E+06 3.65E+06 9.33E+04 1.53 CTSO-3 1.68E+05 5.67E+05 2.92E+03 1.43
CTSO-4 1.08E+08 1.26E+08 5.89E+06 7.73 CTSO-4 5.81E+08 4.94E+08 8.05E+07 7.23
CTSO-5 6.37E+07 7.02E+07 1.02E+06 6.30 CTSO-5 5.74E+08 4.75E+08 2.91E+07 7.37
CTSO-6 1.36E+08 2.52E+08 2.39E+06 7.60 CTSO-6 5.88E+08 5.07E+08 2.55E+07 7.10
CTSO-7 5.56E+07 6.10E+07 2.13E+06 6.27 CTSO-7 5.15E+08 4.67E+08 1.45E+07 6.93
CTSO-8 9.00E+07 1.17E+08 1.06E+06 7.27 CTSO-8 5.74E+08 4.58E+08 3.09E+07 7.33
CTSO-9 2.68E+06 6.58E+06 3.96E+04 1.87 CTSO-9 6.94E+04 1.61E+05 2.21E+03 1.57
CTSO-10 5.50E+07 5.24E+07 9.39E+05 6.30 CTSO-10 6.64E+08 6.30E+08 2.52E+07 7.70
f20 f21
TSO 2.97E+03 1.91E+02 2.56E+03 5.43 TSO 2.72E+03 4.50E+01 2.63E+03 7.07
CTSO-1 2.97E+03 1.91E+02 2.52E+03 6.50 CTSO-1 2.72E+03 5.31E+01 2.62E+03 7.20
CTSO-2 2.97E+03 1.59E+02 2.60E+03 5.80 CTSO-2 2.71E+03 4.52E+01 2.62E+03 6.80
CTSO-3 2.99E+03 2.50E+02 2.40E+03 6.23 CTSO-3 2.60E+03 5.54E+01 2.49E+03 2.13
CTSO-4 3.03E+03 2.44E+02 2.53E+03 6.53 CTSO-4 2.71E+03 5.90E+01 2.63E+03 6.43
CTSO-5 3.01E+03 1.41E+02 2.74E+03 6.60 CTSO-5 2.71E+03 5.16E+01 2.60E+03 6.20
CTSO-6 2.96E+03 1.78E+02 2.59E+03 5.73 CTSO-6 2.74E+03 4.94E+01 2.64E+03 7.83
(Continued )

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 15/47
 Table 3 (continued )
Table 3-B

Algorithm AVG STD MIN MR Algorithm AVG STD MIN MR

CTSO-7 2.96E+03 1.84E+02 2.66E+03 5.53 CTSO-7 2.72E+03 6.25E+01 2.61E+03 6.97
CTSO-8 2.99E+03 1.60E+02 2.65E+03 6.17 CTSO-8 2.71E+03 6.74E+01 2.60E+03 5.93
CTSO-9 3.06E+03 2.49E+02 2.56E+03 6.67 CTSO-9 2.60E+03 5.86E+01 2.51E+03 2.30
CTSO-10 2.92E+03 2.16E+02 2.54E+03 4.80 CTSO-10 2.72E+03 4.95E+01 2.61E+03 7.13
Table 3-C

Algorithm AVG STD MIN MR Algorithm AVG STD MIN MR

f22 f23
TSO 9.47E+03 9.40E+02 6.59E+03 6.33 TSO 3.46E+03 1.44E+02 3.19E+03 5.80
CTSO-1 9.66E+03 8.69E+02 6.58E+03 7.13 CTSO-1 3.54E+03 1.60E+02 3.29E+03 7.43
CTSO-2 9.86E+03 7.73E+02 7.16E+03 7.73 CTSO-2 3.49E+03 1.85E+02 3.22E+03 6.07
CTSO-3 8.50E+03 1.45E+03 5.29E+03 3.93 CTSO-3 3.36E+03 1.62E+02 3.01E+03 3.83
CTSO-4 9.36E+03 9.72E+02 6.94E+03 6.20 CTSO-4 3.49E+03 1.93E+02 3.05E+03 6.20
CTSO-5 9.34E+03 9.78E+02 6.16E+03 5.77 CTSO-5 3.47E+03 1.95E+02 3.16E+03 5.47
CTSO-6 9.52E+03 8.58E+02 7.13E+03 6.57 CTSO-6 3.53E+03 1.80E+02 3.28E+03 6.87
CTSO-7 9.56E+03 6.84E+02 7.67E+03 6.57 CTSO-7 3.52E+03 1.73E+02 3.20E+03 7.03
CTSO-8 9.50E+03 1.12E+03 6.35E+03 6.47 CTSO-8 3.55E+03 2.67E+02 3.21E+03 6.77
CTSO-9 8.06E+03 1.86E+03 2.84E+03 3.03 CTSO-9 3.36E+03 1.61E+02 2.98E+03 4.10
CTSO-10 9.58E+03 5.84E+02 8.57E+03 6.27 CTSO-10 3.48E+03 1.47E+02 3.18E+03 6.43
f24 f25
TSO 3.71E+03 2.08E+02 3.37E+03 6.80 TSO 4.68E+03 4.06E+02 3.79E+03 8.03
CTSO-1 3.63E+03 1.90E+02 3.31E+03 5.30 CTSO-1 4.48E+03 4.97E+02 3.56E+03 6.23
CTSO-2 3.75E+03 2.98E+02 3.36E+03 6.70 CTSO-2 4.50E+03 3.61E+02 3.72E+03 6.60
CTSO-3 3.53E+03 2.47E+02 3.04E+03 4.33 CTSO-3 3.02E+03 4.51E+01 2.93E+03 1.57
CTSO-4 3.72E+03 2.39E+02 3.38E+03 6.40 CTSO-4 4.58E+03 4.62E+02 3.87E+03 7.27
CTSO-5 3.76E+03 2.26E+02 3.31E+03 7.17 CTSO-5 4.59E+03 3.97E+02 3.82E+03 7.50
CTSO-6 3.74E+03 2.66E+02 3.35E+03 6.60 CTSO-6 4.65E+03 4.67E+02 3.79E+03 7.43
CTSO-7 3.72E+03 3.32E+02 3.38E+03 5.93 CTSO-7 4.54E+03 4.32E+02 3.64E+03 6.70
CTSO-8 3.76E+03 3.23E+02 3.42E+03 6.50 CTSO-8 4.54E+03 3.53E+02 4.00E+03 7.17
CTSO-9 3.50E+03 1.88E+02 3.21E+03 3.43 CTSO-9 3.01E+03 3.92E+01 2.93E+03 1.43
CTSO-10 3.74E+03 2.92E+02 3.35E+03 6.83 CTSO-10 4.45E+03 3.90E+02 3.79E+03 6.07
f26 f27
TSO 1.13E+04 1.15E+03 8.76E+03 7.67 TSO 4.26E+03 4.63E+02 3.57E+03 7.30
CTSO-1 1.10E+04 1.06E+03 8.23E+03 6.90 CTSO-1 4.21E+03 4.56E+02 3.49E+03 6.40
CTSO-2 1.13E+04 1.02E+03 9.57E+03 7.73 CTSO-2 4.12E+03 3.83E+02 3.56E+03 6.23
CTSO-3 8.45E+03 1.44E+03 4.32E+03 1.90 CTSO-3 3.55E+03 2.19E+02 3.23E+03 1.93
CTSO-4 1.13E+04 1.18E+03 9.20E+03 7.50 CTSO-4 4.16E+03 3.06E+02 3.45E+03 6.93
CTSO-5 1.07E+04 1.22E+03 8.24E+03 6.00 CTSO-5 4.18E+03 3.88E+02 3.45E+03 7.20
CTSO-6 1.06E+04 9.86E+02 9.22E+03 5.80 CTSO-6 4.13E+03 3.67E+02 3.64E+03 6.50
CTSO-7 1.13E+04 1.34E+03 8.39E+03 7.60 CTSO-7 4.09E+03 4.01E+02 3.58E+03 5.97
CTSO-8 1.06E+04 1.25E+03 8.48E+03 5.63 CTSO-8 4.26E+03 3.71E+02 3.55E+03 7.73

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 16/47
 Table 3 (continued )
Table 3-C

Algorithm AVG STD MIN MR Algorithm AVG STD MIN MR

CTSO-9 9.01E+03 1.50E+03 3.63E+03 2.77 CTSO-9 3.66E+03 2.77E+02 3.28E+03 2.93
CTSO-10 1.10E+04 1.37E+03 8.98E+03 6.50 CTSO-10 4.23E+03 4.74E+02 3.61E+03 6.87
f28 f29
TSO 6.95E+03 7.63E+02 5.11E+03 7.80 TSO 7.09E+03 1.32E+03 5.34E+03 7.30
CTSO-1 6.78E+03 8.33E+02 5.49E+03 7.23 CTSO-1 6.60E+03 1.07E+03 4.83E+03 5.93
CTSO-2 6.52E+03 6.75E+02 5.35E+03 6.03 CTSO-2 6.82E+03 1.39E+03 4.71E+03 6.57
CTSO-3 3.36E+03 4.68E+01 3.28E+03 1.43 CTSO-3 5.59E+03 6.93E+02 4.80E+03 3.00
CTSO-4 6.59E+03 8.56E+02 5.32E+03 6.63 CTSO-4 6.64E+03 1.65E+03 4.67E+03 5.53
CTSO-5 6.71E+03 8.21E+02 5.50E+03 6.83 CTSO-5 7.58E+03 3.68E+03 5.25E+03 6.73
CTSO-6 6.59E+03 9.89E+02 4.39E+03 6.80 CTSO-6 6.87E+03 1.25E+03 5.42E+03 6.70
CTSO-7 6.78E+03 8.11E+02 5.23E+03 7.17 CTSO-7 6.62E+03 1.13E+03 5.10E+03 6.27
CTSO-8 6.74E+03 8.69E+02 5.12E+03 6.93 CTSO-8 7.11E+03 1.40E+03 5.01E+03 7.27
CTSO-9 3.38E+03 8.88E+01 3.26E+03 1.57 CTSO-9 5.73E+03 8.07E+02 4.46E+03 3.53
CTSO-10 6.90E+03 6.42E+02 5.73E+03 7.57 CTSO-10 7.06E+03 1.55E+03 4.58E+03 7.17
f30
Algorithm AVG STD MIN MR
TSO 8.51E+08 9.03E+08 1.91E+08 7.43
CTSO-1 6.09E+08 5.87E+08 7.08E+07 6.37
CTSO-2 5.23E+08 5.57E+08 8.79E+07 5.87
CTSO-3 1.87E+06 2.13E+06 5.87E+04 1.50
CTSO-4 6.15E+08 5.41E+08 3.57E+07 6.57
CTSO-5 7.89E+08 5.65E+08 4.65E+07 7.57
CTSO-6 8.63E+08 7.59E+08 1.21E+08 7.20
CTSO-7 8.42E+08 7.37E+08 8.26E+07 7.43
CTSO-8 9.36E+08 7.41E+08 1.48E+08 7.93
CTSO-9 3.02E+06 6.92E+06 3.88E+04 1.50
CTSO-10 6.63E+08 5.55E+08 8.49E+07 6.63
Note:
The use of bold demonstrates the best results attained.

Table 4 Experimental results on CEC’17 test functions.

TSO CTSO-1 CTSO-2 CTSO-3 CTSO-4 CTSO-5 CTSO-6 CTSO-7 CTSO-8 CTSO-9 CTSO-10
6.87 6.66 6.57 2.66 6.68 6.59 6.83 6.62 7.00 2.85 6.68

examined comparatively, and the best solution obtained among the algorithms was
highlighted in bold for ease of readability.

Speed reducer problem

This is essentially a gearbox issue, allowing the aircraft engine to spin at its most efficient
speed (Dhiman, 2021). Finding the face width b ðx1 Þ, the tooth modulus m (x2 ), the
number of teeth on the pinion z (x3 ), the length of the first shaft between the bearings

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 17/47
 Figure 3 Convergence curve graph of CEC’17 test functions.
Full-size  DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526/fig-3

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 18/47
 Figure 4 Boxplot of CEC’17 test functions. Full-size  DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526/fig-4

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 19/47
 Table 5 Wilcoxon rank-sum test on CEC’17 test functions.
CTSO-1 CTSO-2 CTSO-3 CTSO-4 CTSO-5 CTSO-6 CTSO-7 CTSO-8 CTSO-9 CTSO-10
f1 8.53E−01 8.65E−01 3.02E−11 1.91E−01 5.89E−01 7.96E−01 9.71E−01 7.28E−01 3.02E−11 7.06E−01
≈ ≈ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ ≈
f3 9.82E−01 5.30E−01 1.86E−06 2.97E−01 6.00E−01 4.83E−01 6.20E−01 5.20E−01 4.74E−06 9.00E−01
≈ ≈ ∇ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ∇ ≈
f4 5.69E−01 6.84E−01 3.02E−11 9.00E−01 1.62E−01 9.47E−01 1.00E+00 3.40E−01 3.02E−11 3.04E−01
≈ ≈ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ ≈
f5 4.55E−01 6.00E−01 1.96E−10 4.92E−01 9.23E−01 2.64E−01 1.81E−01 4.83E−01 6.72E−10 6.00E−01
≈ ≈ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ ≈
f6 3.48E−01 9.93E−02 6.53E−08 1.41E−01 9.71E−01 3.04E−01 4.29E−01 9.00E−01 1.39E−06 8.19E−01
≈ ≈ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ ≈
f7 2.64E−01 5.40E−01 5.01E−01 1.09E−01 3.03E−02 6.10E−01 7.01E−02 2.97E−01 3.40E−01 8.53E−01
≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ ≈ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈
f8 5.30E−01 1.15E−01 2.37E−10 5.20E−01 5.55E−02 5.59E−01 5.40E−01 3.95E−01 3.34E−11 1.81E−01
≈ ≈ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ ≈
f9 8.07E−01 8.88E−01 2.67E−09 6.73E−01 6.31E−01 8.30E−01 1.00E+00 3.33E−01 3.65E−08 1.76E−01
≈ ≈ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ ≈
f10 2.28E−01 5.30E−01 4.44E−07 3.33E−01 5.37E−02 1.12E−01 2.71E−01 1.54E−01 6.67E−03 5.30E−01
≈ ≈ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ
f11 2.90E−01 9.23E−01 3.02E−11 2.12E−01 3.11E−01 9.94E−01 6.20E−01 2.71E−01 8.10E−10 4.73E−01
≈ ≈ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ ≈
f12 2.07E−02 1.37E−01 3.02E−11 2.40E−01 1.12E−01 5.30E−01 5.20E−01 9.23E−01 3.02E−11 3.79E−01
Δ ≈ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ ≈
f13 7.28E−01 8.30E−01 3.02E−11 5.11E−01 4.12E−01 1.91E−01 5.59E−01 8.65E−01 1.21E−10 5.01E−01
≈ ≈ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ ≈
f14 3.71E−01 6.95E−01 1.60E−07 2.71E−01 6.00E−01 9.23E−01 1.67E−01 7.06E−01 2.02E−08 6.84E−01
≈ ≈ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ ≈
f15 6.35E−02 1.19E−01 3.02E−11 1.41E−01 6.57E−02 5.49E−01 1.22E−01 3.15E−02 3.02E−11 3.87E−01
≈ ≈ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ Δ ≈
f16 3.71E−01 2.97E−01 3.20E−09 8.30E−01 2.40E−01 9.82E−01 4.38E−01 7.06E−01 6.72E−10 3.48E−01
≈ ≈ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ ≈
f17 5.59E−01 7.01E−02 2.15E−06 6.31E−01 3.79E−01 8.65E−01 6.10E−01 3.79E−01 1.17E−03 7.28E−01
≈ ≈ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ ≈
f18 1.71E−01 5.40E−01 5.49E−11 7.73E−01 1.19E−01 9.59E−01 6.79E−02 6.10E−01 1.33E−10 1.22E−01
≈ ≈ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ ≈
f19 7.28E−01 2.64E−01 3.02E−11 4.20E−01 5.59E−01 4.46E−01 9.94E−01 4.92E−01 3.02E−11 3.79E−01
≈ ≈ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ ≈
f20 4.83E−01 7.17E−01 3.04E−01 3.33E−01 1.58E−01 6.20E−01 9.00E−01 5.01E−01 9.05E−02 5.89E−01
≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈
f21 9.94E−01 5.11E−01 3.82E−09 4.29E−01 3.11E−01 1.58E−01 7.39E−01 2.46E−01 3.20E−09 9.59E−01
≈ ≈ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ ≈
f22 3.71E−01 6.35E−02 2.38E−03 6.84E−01 5.79E−01 7.73E−01 8.88E−01 6.31E−01 3.77E−04 9.23E−01

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 20/47
 Table 5 (continued )
CTSO-1 CTSO-2 CTSO-3 CTSO-4 CTSO-5 CTSO-6 CTSO-7 CTSO-8 CTSO-9 CTSO-10
≈ ≈ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ ≈
f23 4.84E−02 6.95E−01 1.44E−02 7.62E−01 8.53E−01 1.12E−01 1.58E−01 2.58E−01 1.63E−02 5.30E−01
Δ ≈ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ ≈
f24 1.49E−01 7.84E−01 4.23E−03 7.73E−01 2.90E−01 6.10E−01 3.18E−01 8.65E−01 5.97E−05 9.82E−01
≈ ≈ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ ≈
f25 1.08E−02 4.36E−02 3.02E−11 3.40E−01 5.69E−01 4.12E−01 1.30E−01 1.19E−01 3.02E−11 9.07E−03
Δ Δ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ Δ
f26 4.12E−01 1.00E+00 6.72E−10 9.59E−01 6.79E−02 1.38E−02 7.39E−01 3.39E−02 3.08E−08 2.06E−01
≈ ≈ Δ ≈ ≈ Δ ≈ Δ Δ ≈
f27 6.84E−01 2.23E−01 1.55E−09 6.00E−01 5.49E−01 3.63E−01 9.63E−02 8.88E−01 6.05E−07 6.41E−01
≈ ≈ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ ≈
f28 3.11E−01 3.03E−02 3.02E−11 9.93E−02 1.91E−01 1.81E−01 3.95E−01 2.46E−01 3.02E−11 7.51E−01
≈ Δ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ ≈
f29 1.96E−01 2.97E−01 6.53E−07 7.24E−02 6.95E−01 5.11E−01 1.26E−01 8.77E−01 5.86E−06 9.12E−01
≈ ≈ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ ≈
f30 2.46E−01 3.39E−02 3.02E−11 2.90E−01 5.01E−01 9.59E−01 7.51E−01 3.18E−01 3.02E−11 4.64E−01
≈ Δ Δ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ Δ ≈
(Δ/∇/≈) 3/0/26 3/0/26 26/1/2 0/0/29 1/0/28 1/0/28 0/0/29 2/0/27 26/1/2 1/0/28

Figure 5 Speed reducer problem. Full-size  DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526/fig-5

l1 ðx4 Þ, the length of the second shaft between the bearings l2 ðx5 Þ, the diameter of the first
shaft d1 ðx6 Þ, and the diameter of the second shaft d2 ðx7 Þ will allow you to determine the
minimum values of the seven decision variables in this problem. Figure 5 shows a
schematic illustration of the speed reducer concept. The goal of this design challenge is to
determine the speed reducer’s lightest possible cost. The mathematical representation of
this problem is as in the Appendix 1.
The comparative values of the performances of the 10 proposed CTSO methods and
standard TSO methods on the speed reducer problem are presented in Table 6. The best,
average, worst, and standard deviation values of the methods used are shown in Table 6. In
addition, the decision variables depending on the best value of the methods used in the

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 21/47
 Table 6 Statistical results of the used algorithms for speed reducer problem.
Algorithm Best Mean Worst SD
TSO 3,043.966 338,765.8 2,180,277 634,222.4
CTSO1 3,133.385 209,405.2 1,769,248 470,918.1
CTSO2 3,008.135 643,475.8 2,297,437 856,143.2
CTSO3 2,994.423 3,805.273 5,521.033 872.899
CTSO4 3,050.252 422,165.5 2,001,481 630,221.1
CTSO5 3,003.839 135,976.5 1,034,844 289,203.5
CTSO6 3,015.958 231,801 2,363,101 636,178.5
CTSO7 3,014.59 210,227.5 1,625,269 455,196.1
CTSO8 3,050.025 594,289.3 2,401,982 850,915.1
CTSO9 2,994.423 3,627.353 4,774.773 562.9862
CTSO10 3,036.987 358,518.4 2,078,853 620,159.3
Note:
The use of bold demonstrates the best results attained.

Table 7 Comparison of the best optimum solution for the speed reducer problem.
Algorithm Parameters values fmin

x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7
TSO 3.501019 0.7 17 7.3 7.917685 3.367619 5.349237 3,043.966
CTSO1 3.499917 0.7 17 7.994088 7.911673 3.787018 5.28737 3,133.385
CTSO2 3.504471 0.7 17 7.99709 7.857388 3.35903 5.287425 3,008.135
CTSO3 3.49999 0.7 17 7.3 7.715319 3.350541 5.286655 2,994.423
CTSO4 3.499871 0.7 17 8.067661 8.067661 3.361258 5.345938 3,050.252
CTSO5 3.499944 0.7 17 8.006041 7.768105 3.353007 5.288778 3,003.839
CTSO6 3.500284 0.7 17 8.048994 8.074678 3.35588 5.29533 3,015.958
CTSO7 3.509419 0.7 17 7.630128 8.036515 3.373788 5.28744 3,014.590
CTSO8 3.499876 0.7 17 8.014485 7.877796 3.352811 5.356255 3,050.025
CTSO9 3.49999 0.7 17 7.3 7.715319 3.350541 5.286654 2,994.423
CTSO10 3.500698 0.7 17 7.3 8.072679 3.361987 5.335593 3,036.987
Note:
The use of bold demonstrates the best results attained.

results of 30 runs on this problem are given in Table 7. When Table 6 is examined, it is seen
that CTSO-3 and CTSO-9 are superior to other methods on the basis of the best value, and
CTSO-9 is more successful when analyzed on the basis of mean value. In addition, the
convergence graph of the methods used on the speed reducer problem is shown in Fig. 6.

Tension compression spring design problem

The goal of the tension/compression spring design issue, as outlined by Arora (Arora,
2004), is to provide a spring design with the least amount of weight possible. Figure 7’s
schematic illustration of this minimization issue shows some of its restrictions, including
the cut-off voltage, ripple frequency, and minimal deviation. There are three choice
variables in the tension/compression spring dilemma. These are the following: the wire

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 22/47
 Figure 6 The convergence graph of the methods used on the speed reducer problem.
Full-size  DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526/fig-6

Figure 7 Tension compression spring design problem. Full-size  DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526/fig-7

diameter d (x1 ), the average coil diameter D (x2 ), and the number of active coils N (x3 ). The
mathematical representation of this problem is as in the Appendix 2.
The comparative values of the performances of the 10 proposed CTSO methods and
standard TSO methods on the tension compression spring design problem are presented
in Table 8. The best, average, worst, and standard deviation values of the methods used are
shown in Table 8. In addition, the decision variables depending on the best value of the
methods used in the results of 30 runs on this problem are given in Table 9. When Table 8
is examined, it is seen that CTSO-9 is superior to other methods on the basis of the best
value, and CTSO-6 is more successful when analyzed on the basis of mean value. In
addition, the convergence graph of the methods used on the tension compression spring
design problem is shown in Fig. 8.

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 23/47
 Table 8 Statistical results of the used algorithms for tension-compression spring design problem
(Case 1).
Algorithm Best Mean Worst SD
TSO 0.012673 0.013698 0.017631 0.001075
CTSO1 0.012715 0.013655 0.017233 0.00081
CTSO2 0.012702 0.013486 0.016016 0.000722
CTSO3 0.01268 0.014229 0.020937 0.001895
CTSO4 0.012784 0.013732 0.016824 0.000896
CTSO5 0.012714 0.013537 0.015575 0.000668
CTSO6 0.012739 0.013413 0.015612 0.000617
CTSO7 0.01268 0.013579 0.015701 0.000774
CTSO8 0.012683 0.013597 0.017302 0.000961
CTSO9 0.012670 0.013483 0.017367 0.001136
CTSO10 0.012714 0.013481 0.015773 0.000701
Note:
The use of bold demonstrates the best results attained.

Table 9 Comparison of the best optimum solution for the tension compression spring design
problem.
Algorithm Parameters values fmin

x1 x2 x3
TSO 0.05215 0.367888 10.66628 0.012673
CTSO1 0.053121 0.391907 9.497097 0.012715
CTSO2 0.050521 0.329228 13.11549 0.012702
CTSO3 0.050809 0.335913 12.62168 0.01268
CTSO4 0.054124 0.418139 8.436915 0.012784
CTSO5 0.050561 0.330017 13.0706 0.012714
CTSO6 0.053384 0.398798 9.208447 0.012739
CTSO7 0.052278 0.370952 10.50679 0.01268
CTSO8 0.05217 0.368334 10.65104 0.012683
CTSO9 0.05119 0.344834 12.02127 0.012670
CTSO10 0.053257 0.395514 9.333766 0.012714
Note:
The use of bold demonstrates the best results attained.

Welded beam design problem

The primary goal of the welded beam design challenge is to create a beam for the least
amount of money while adhering to specific constraints (Varol Altay & Alatas, 2020).
Figure 9 depicts a welded beam construction made up of beam A and the welding process
needed to join it to item B. Five nonlinear inequality constraints and four choice variables
make up the issue. The weld thickness, weld joint length, element width, and element
thickness are represented by the design parameters h (x1 ), l (x2 ), t (x3 ), and b (x4 ),
respectively. The mathematical representation of this problem is as in the Appendix 3.

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 24/47
 Figure 8 The convergence graph of the methods used on the tension compression spring design
problem. Full-size  DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526/fig-8

Figure 9 Welded beam design problem. Full-size  DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526/fig-9

The comparative values of the performances of the 10 proposed CTSO methods and
standard TSO methods on the welded beam design problem are presented in Table 10. The
best, average, worst, and standard deviation values of the methods used are shown in
Table 10. In addition, the decision variables depending on the best value of the methods
used in the results of 30 runs on this problem are given in Table 11. When Table 10 is
examined, it is seen that CTSO-1 is superior to other methods on the basis of the best
value, and CTSO-4 is more successful when analyzed on the basis of mean value. In

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 25/47
 Table 10 Statistical results of the used algorithms for welded beam design problem.
Algorithm Best Mean Worst SD
TSO 1.691099 2.765785 3.713832 0.681901
CTSO1 1.680985 2.706922 3.696062 0.69335
CTSO2 1.692163 2.630818 3.687721 0.754546
CTSO3 1.909833 3.307382 5.11409 0.943303
CTSO4 1.699917 2.416367 3.745437 0.663697
CTSO5 1.760383 2.792383 3.786065 0.544282
CTSO6 1.721776 2.423815 3.684699 0.621039
CTSO7 1.74493 2.67853 3.994741 0.69217
CTSO8 1.764811 2.587149 3.675218 0.590975
CTSO9 1.807061 3.159026 6.243182 1.010093
CTSO10 1.739581 2.665869 3.709204 0.646727
Note:
The use of bold demonstrates the best results attained.

Table 11 Comparison of the best optimum solution for welded beam design problem.
Algorithm Parameters values fmin

x1 x2 x3 x4
TSO 0.198654 3.371947 9.112068 0.202756 1.691099
CTSO1 0.200332 3.329221 9.164297 0.200695 1.680985
CTSO2 0.195439 3.539739 9.191104 0.198922 1.692163
CTSO3 0.235488 3.063879 8.008572 0.261938 1.909833
CTSO4 0.202884 3.345369 9.074833 0.204389 1.699917
CTSO5 0.146154 4.743619 9.193987 0.19883 1.760383
CTSO6 0.197589 3.424587 8.970536 0.209319 1.721776
CTSO7 0.161839 4.37461 9.210771 0.198758 1.74493
CTSO8 0.220815 3.104299 8.68097 0.223645 1.764811
CTSO9 0.202509 3.452743 8.545876 0.230036 1.807061
CTSO10 0.200633 3.398656 8.875607 0.213808 1.739581
Note:
The use of bold demonstrates the best results attained.

addition, the convergence graph of the methods used on the welded beam design problem
is shown in Fig. 10.

Pressure vessel problem

The major goal of this issue is to optimize vessel formation, material use, and welding costs
(He & Zhou, 2018). The objective function is constructed using four variables: shell
thickness (x1 ), head thickness (x2 ), inner radius (x3 ), and length (x4 ), without accounting
for vessel height. This issue contains four restrictions that must be met. Figure 11 depicts
the pressure vessel design problem’s schematic structure. The mathematical representation
of this problem is as in the Appendix 4.

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 26/47
 Figure 10 The convergence graph of the methods used on the welded beam design problem.
Full-size  DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526/fig-10

Figure 11 Pressure vessel design problem. Full-size  DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526/fig-11

The comparative values of the performances of the 10 proposed CTSO methods and
standard TSO methods on the pressure vessel design problem are presented in Table 12.
The best, average, worst, and standard deviation values of the methods used are shown in
Table 12. In addition, the decision variables depending on the best value of the methods
used in the results of 30 runs on this problem are given in Table 13. When Table 12 is
examined, it is seen that CTSO-2 is superior to other methods on the basis of the best
value, and CTSO-5 is more successful when analyzed on the basis of mean value. In
addition, the convergence graph of the methods used on the pressure vessel design
problem is shown in Fig. 12.

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 27/47
 Table 12 Statistical results of the used algorithms for pressure vessel design problem.
Algorithm Best Mean Worst SD
TSO 6,591.539 9,358.735 15,198.4 2,047.207
CTSO1 6,934.041 9,290.626 12,997.45 1,833.564
CTSO2 6,325.269 8,872.022 13,581.73 2,116.409
CTSO3 6,720.31 18,807.36 55,057.06 10,642.19
CTSO4 6,485.754 8,708.514 13,722.88 1,568.458
CTSO5 6,479.417 8,662.113 12,317.9 1,380.715
CTSO6 6,494.753 8,878.358 13,742.33 1,651.033
CTSO7 6,782.928 8,763.569 12,770.58 1,438.112
CTSO8 6,722.005 8,687.164 14,207.82 1,804.541
CTSO9 7,836.811 17,484.35 38,598.81 8,019.801
CTSO10 6,794.113 8,275.311 11,169.49 1,131.863
Note:
The use of bold demonstrates the best results attained.

Table 13 Comparison of the best optimum solution for pressure vessel design problem.
Algorithm Parameters values fmin

x1 x2 x3 x4
TSO 1 0.5 49.9536 98.7225 6,591.539
CTSO1 1.0625 0.5625 53.06296 75.76345 6,934.041
CTSO2 0.875 0.5 45.277 140.8673 6,325.269
CTSO3 1 0.5625 51.66779 85.64049 6,720.31
CTSO4 1 0.5 51.01429 90.49689 6,485.754
CTSO5 1 0.5 51.10119 89.90082 6,479.417
CTSO6 0.9375 0.5 47.36856 120.7645 6,494.753
CTSO7 1.0625 0.5625 54.90602 63.63404 6,782.928
CTSO8 1 0.5625 51.64737 85.79055 6,722.005
CTSO9 1.25 0.5 51.69956 85.4083 7,836.811
CTSO10 1.0625 0.5625 54.77942 64.46914 6,794.113
Note:
The use of bold demonstrates the best results attained.

Three bar truss design problem

In civil engineering, this issue is referred to as a structural optimization problem. By
modifying the cross-sectional areas (x1 and x2 ) while taking into consideration the stress
(σ) on each of the truss members, Nowacki’s issue seeks to reduce the volume of the three-
bar truss. These values’ possible value ranges are 0  x1 ; x2  1. The graphical illustration
of this problem’s mathematical formulation is shown in Fig. 13. The mathematical
representation of this problem is as in the Appendix 5.
The comparative values of the performances of the 10 proposed CTSO methods and
standard TSO methods on the three-bar truss design problem are presented in Table 14.
The best, average, worst, and standard deviation values of the methods used are shown in
Table 14. In addition, the decision variables depending on the best value of the methods

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 28/47
 Figure 12 The convergence graph of the methods used on the pressure vessel problem.
Full-size  DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526/fig-12

Figure 13 Three bar truss design problem. Full-size  DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526/fig-13

used in the results of 30 runs on this problem are given in Table 15. When Table 14 is
examined, it is seen that CTSO-9 is superior to other methods on the basis of the best
value, and CTSO-10 is more successful when analyzed on the basis of mean value. In
addition, the convergence graph of the methods used on the three-bar truss design
problem is shown in Fig. 14.

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 29/47
 Table 14 Statistical results of the used algorithms for three-bar truss design problem.
Algorithm Best Mean Worst SD
TSO 263.8964 264.5518 270.4717 1.648298
CTSO1 263.8987 264.8722 270.7144 2.06893
CTSO2 263.9028 264.7003 270.7078 1.696716
CTSO3 263.9005 266.5551 274.3699 2.902827
CTSO4 263.8962 264.4986 270.7534 1.375953
CTSO5 263.8963 264.5397 270.3816 1.46023
CTSO6 263.9002 264.6418 270.7240 1.362083
CTSO7 263.8966 264.6414 270.6517 1.388371
CTSO8 263.9014 264.5663 270.3992 1.670418
CTSO9 263.8957 266.2048 281.5610 3.621051
CTSO10 263.8962 264.3218 270.7161 1.223462
Note:
The use of bold demonstrates the best results attained.

Table 15 Comparison of the best optimum solution for three-bar truss design problem.
Algorithm Parameters values fmin

x1 x2
TSO 0.787491 0.411599 263.8964
CTSO1 0.786632 0.414043 263.8987
CTSO2 0.786469 0.41449 263.9028
CTSO3 0.791316 0.40082 263.9005
CTSO4 0.788856 0.407739 263.8962
CTSO5 0.787869 0.410515 263.8963
CTSO6 0.790911 0.401968 263.9002
CTSO7 0.789892 0.404812 263.8966
CTSO8 0.785835 0.416332 263.9014
CTSO9 0.789298 0.40648 263.8957
CTSO10 0.787728 0.41092 263.8962
Note:
The use of bold demonstrates the best results attained.

Analysis of CTSOs in real-world engineering problems with other meta-

heuristic optimization algorithms
The speed reducer problem has been solved by many different researchers in the literature
with different metaheuristic optimization methods. The classical TSO and the proposed
CTSO method were compared with the Moth Flame Optimization Algorithm (MFO)
(Mirjalili, 2015), Weighted Superposition Attraction (WSA) (Baykaso, 2015), Grey Wolf
Optimization (GWO) (Mirjalili, Mirjalili & Lewis, 2014), Artificial Acari Optimization
(AAO) (Czerniak, Zarzycki & Ewald, 2017), Sine Cosine Algorithm (SCA) (Mirjalili,
2016), and Arithmetic Optimization Algorithm (AOA) (Abualigah et al., 2021a) methods
in the literature. The best cost and related decision variables obtained by the proposed
method and the methods proposed by other researchers for the speed reducer problem are

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 30/47
 Figure 14 The convergence graph of the methods used on the three-bar truss design problem.
Full-size  DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526/fig-14

Table 16 Comparison of the speed reducer problem.

Algorithm Parameters values fmin

x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7
MFO (Mirjalili, 2015) 3.497455 0.700 17 7.82775 7.712457 3.351787 5.286352 2,998.941
WSA (Baykaso, 2015) 3.500 0.7 17 7.3 7.8 3.350215 5.286683 2,996.348
GWO (Mirjalili, Mirjalili & Lewis, 2014) 3.501 0.7 17 7.3 7.811013 3.350704 5.287411 2,997.820
AAO (Czerniak, Zarzycki & Ewald, 2017) 3.4999 0.7 17 7.3 7.8 3.3502 5.2877 2,997.058
SCA (Mirjalili, 2016) 3.521 0.7 17 8.3 7.923351 3.355911 5.300734 3,026.838
AOA (Abualigah et al., 2021a) 3.50384 0.7 17 7.3 7.72933 3.35649 5.2867 2,997.916
TSO 3.501019 0.7 17 7.3 7.917685 3.367619 5.349237 3,043.966
CTSO-3 3.49999 0.7 17 7.3 7.715319 3.350541 5.286655 2,994.423
CTSO-9 3.49999 0.7 17 7.3 7.715319 3.350541 5.286654 2,994.423
Note:
The use of bold demonstrates the best results attained.

presented in Table 16. When the results obtained were examined, it was observed that the
proposed CTSO-3 and CTSO-9 method gave a much better result than the classical TSO
and other competitive methods.
There are many methods in the literature to solve the tension compression spring
design problem. The classical TSO and the proposed CTSO method were compared with
the HGSO, AAO, Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA) (Mirjalili & Lewis, 2016), Harris
Hawk Optimization (HHO) (Heidari et al., 2019), Chaotic Bird Swarm Algorithm
(CMBSA) (Varol Altay & Alatas, 2020), Salp Swarm Algorithm (SSA) (Mirjalili et al.,

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 31/47
 Table 17 Comparison of tension compression spring design problem.
Algorithm Parameters values fmin

x1 x2 x3
HGSO (Hashim et al., 2019) 0.0518 0.3569 11.2023 0.0127
AAO (Czerniak, Zarzycki & Ewald, 2017) 0.0517 0.3581 11.2015 0.0127
WOA (Mirjalili & Lewis, 2016) 0.0512 0.3452 12.004 0.0127
HHO (Heidari et al., 2019) 0.0543 0.4239 8.2187 0.0128
CMBSA (Varol Altay & Alatas, 2020) 0.0519 0.3618 11.000 0.0127
SSA (Mirjalili et al., 2017) 0.0516 0.3547 11.4059 0.0127
CBPPSO (Agrawal & Tripathi, 2021) 0.0512 0.3465 11.9097 0.0127
CBSA (Wang, Deng & Duan, 2018) 0.0516 0.3566 11.2918 0.0127
TSO 0.05215 0.367888 10.66628 0.012673
CTSO-9 0.05119 0.344834 12.02127 0.012670
Note:
The use of bold demonstrates the best results attained.

2017), Cumulative Binomial Probability Particle Swarm Optimization (CBPPSO)

(Agrawal & Tripathi, 2021), and Competitive Bird Swarm Algorithm (CBSA) (Wang, Deng
& Duan, 2018) methods in the literature. The results obtained from this comparison are
given in Table 17. Table 17 presents the best cost and relevant decision variables for the
tension compression spring design problem. When the literature and the results of the
experiments are examined, it is concluded that CTSO-9 gives better results than classical
TSO and competitive methods in the literature.
Welded beam design problem has been solved by many different researchers in the
literature with different metaheuristic optimization methods. The classical TSO and the
proposed CTSO method were compared with the HGSO, MAOA, HHO, CMBSA, CBBSA,
CBPPSO, Chaotic Grey Wolf Optimization (CGWO) (Kohli & Arora, 2018), Differential
Big Bang-Big Crunch Algorithm (DBCA) (Prayogo et al., 2018), Sonar Inspired
Optimization (SIO) (Tzanetos & Dounias, 2020), and Hybrid Genetic Algorithm-Ant
Colony Optimization-Particle Swarm Optimization (H-GA-ACO-PSO) (Tam et al., 2019)
methods in the literature. The best cost and relevant decision variables obtained by the
proposed method and the methods proposed by other researchers for the welded beam
design problem are presented in Table 18. When the results obtained were examined, it
was observed that the proposed CTSO-1 method gave a much better result than the
classical TSO and other competitive methods.
The pressure vessel problem has been solved by many different researchers in the
literature with different metaheuristic optimization methods. The classical TSO and the
proposed CTSO method were compared with the MAOA, CSMA, AAO, HHO, CMBSA,
SSA, CBPPSO, H-GA-ACO-PSO, and Adaptive Reinforcement Learning based Bat
Algorithm (ARLBAT) (Meng, Li & Gao, 2019) methods in the literature. The best cost of
the proposed method and the methods suggested by other researchers for the pressure
vessel problem and the relevant decision variables are shown in Table 19. When the results

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 32/47
 Table 18 Comparison of welded beam design problem.
Algorithm Parameters values fmin

x1 x2 x3 x4
HGSO (Hashim et al., 2019) 0.2054 3.4476 9.0269 0.2060 1.7260
MAOA (Altay, 2022a) 0.2057 3.4705 9.0366 0.2057 1.7246
HHO (Heidari et al., 2019) 0.1956 3.7730 9.0307 0.2060 1.7501
CMBSA (Varol Altay & Alatas, 2020) 0.2057 3.4702 9.0377 0.2057 1.7249
CBPPSO (Agrawal & Tripathi, 2021) 0.2057 3.4704 9.0366 0.2057 1.7249
CGWO (Kohli & Arora, 2018) 0.3439 1.8836 9.0313 0.2121 1.7255
DBCA (Prayogo et al., 2018) 0.2057 3.4705 9.0366 0.2057 1.7249
SIO (Tzanetos & Dounias, 2020) 0.3314 2.0174 9.0459 0.2088 1.7621
H-GA-ACO-PSO (Tam et al., 2019) 0.2057 3.4705 9.0366 0.2057 1.7249
TSO 0.198654 3.371947 9.112068 0.202756 1.6911
CTSO-1 0.200332 3.329221 9.164297 0.200695 1.6810
Note:
The use of bold demonstrates the best results attained.

Table 19 Comparison of pressure vessel problem.

Algorithm Parameters values fmin

x1 x2 x3 x4
MAOA (Altay, 2022a) 0.7953 0.3931 41.2274 187.7371 5,914.48511
CSMA (Altay, 2022c) 0.7778 0.3845 40.3207 199.9850 5,882.0851
AAO (Czerniak, Zarzycki & Ewald, 2017) 0.8125 0.4375 42.0985 176.6366 6,059.7140
HHO (Heidari et al., 2019) 0.8540 0.4329 44.0025 154.3888 6,543.4802
CMBSA (Varol Altay & Alatas, 2020) 0.7780 0.3850 40.3200 200.0000 5,883.8610
SSA (Mirjalili et al., 2017) 0.7807 0.3859 40.4707 197.9081 6,149.0232
CBPPSO (Agrawal & Tripathi, 2021) 1.125 0.6250 62.9866 20.00000 6,952.7200
H-GA-ACO-PSO (Tam et al., 2019) 0.8125 0.4375 42.0984 176.6366 6,059.7143
ARLBAT (Meng, Li & Gao, 2019) 0.8125 0.4375 42.0984 176.6366 6,059.7143
TSO 1 0.5 49.9536 98.7225 6,591.5390
CTSO-2 0.875 0.5 45.277 140.8673 6,325.2690
Note:
The use of bold demonstrates the best results attained.

are examined, it is seen that the CSMA method gives a better result than the proposed
CTSOs, classical TSO and other competitive methods.
The three bar truss problem has been solved by many different researchers in the
literature with different metaheuristic optimization methods. The classical TSO and the
proposed CTSO method were compared with the AOA, SSA, CBPPSO, Cuckoo Search
(CS) (Gandomi, Yang & Alavi, 2013), and mine blast algorithm (MBA) (Sadollah et al.,
2013) methods in the literature. The best cost and relevant decision variables obtained by
the proposed method and the methods proposed by other researchers for the three bar
truss problem are shown in Table 20. When the literature and the results of the

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 33/47
 Table 20 Comparison of for three bar truss problem.
Algorithm Parameters values fmin

x1 x2
AOA (Abualigah et al., 2021a) 0.79369 0.39426 263.9154
SSA (Mirjalili et al., 2017) 0.78866541 0.408275784 263.8958
CS (Gandomi, Yang & Alavi, 2013) 0.78867 0.40902 263.9716
MBA (Sadollah et al., 2013) 0.7885650 0.4085597 263.8959
TSO 0.787491 0.411599 263.8964
CTSO-9 0.789298 0.40648 263.8957
Note:
The use of bold demonstrates the best results attained.

Table 21 Description of used benchmark’s datasets.

Datasets Number of features Number of instances Classes
Australian 14 690 2
Ionosphere 34 351 2
Spectheart 44 267 2
Sonar 60 208 2
Wine 13 178 3
Heart 13 270 2
Thyroid 21 7,200 3
Tic-tac-toe 9 958 2
Vehicle 18 846 4
Krvskp 36 3,196 2

experiments are examined, it is concluded that CTSO-9 gives better results than classical
TSO and competitive methods in the literature.

Feature selection
This section shows a comparison of performance between the suggested 10 distinct CTSO
approaches and the state-of-the-art over ten different benchmark datasets using standard
TSO and the state-of-the-art (Australian, ionosphere, spectheart, sonar, wine, heart,
thyroid, tic-tac-toe, vehicle, krvskp). These datasets, whose descriptions are provided in
Table 21, include a broad variety of attributes and come in various shapes and sizes. The
purpose of this experiment is to assess the applicability of the suggested CTSO approaches
for feature selection by analyzing their impact on benchmark datasets and comparing their
performance to existing techniques. The experiment will explicitly look at how much
better the performance of different datasets is when compared to the other suggested
approaches. The efficiency of the recommended CTSO approaches is assessed using the
accuracy measure, the standard deviation, and the number of features. The minimum,
average, and maximum fitness values are also taken into account.

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 34/47
 Table 22 Comparison of the CTSOs approaches based on the minimum of the fitness values.
Australian Ionosphere Spectheart Sonar Wine Heart Thyroid Tic-tac-toe Vehicle Krvskp
CTSO-1 0.1739 0.0286 0.1509 0.0244 0.0286 0.1667 0.0174 0.1832 0.2722 0.0407
CTSO-2 0.1522 0.0286 0.1509 0.0488 0.0286 0.1667 0.0194 0.1832 0.2663 0.0407
CTSO-3 0.1522 0.0429 0.1132 0.0488 0.0286 0.1852 0.0174 0.1780 0.2485 0.0313
CTSO-4 0.1522 0.0429 0.1509 0.0244 0.0286 0.1481 0.0194 0.1780 0.2899 0.0407
CTSO-5 0.1667 0.0429 0.1321 0.0244 0.0286 0.1296 0.0181 0.1780 0.2663 0.0454
CTSO-6 0.1667 0.0429 0.1698 0.0488 0.0000 0.1852 0.0194 0.1780 0.2722 0.0438
CTSO-7 0.1522 0.0429 0.1509 0.0488 0.0286 0.1481 0.0167 0.1780 0.2840 0.0579
CTSO-8 0.1594 0.0286 0.1698 0.0244 0.0286 0.1481 0.0201 0.1780 0.2840 0.0391
CTSO-9 0.1594 0.0429 0.1321 0.0244 0.0000 0.1296 0.0167 0.1780 0.2781 0.0266
CTSO-10 0.1594 0.0429 0.1698 0.0000 0.0286 0.1481 0.0181 0.1832 0.2899 0.0297
TSO 0.1884 0.0714 0.2075 0.0976 0.0571 0.2407 0.0264 0.2042 0.3077 0.0704
AO 0.2174 0.0857 0.2453 0.0976 0.0857 0.2407 0.0319 0.2304 0.3136 0.1017
SMA 0.1739 0.0714 0.1887 0.0976 0.0857 0.2407 0.0278 0.2461 0.3254 0.0908
WOA 0.1739 0.0571 0.1698 0.0488 0.0571 0.2037 0.0229 0.2042 0.2840 0.0595
Note:
The use of bold demonstrates the best results attained.

Table 23 Comparison of the CTSOs approaches based on the average of the fitness values.
Australian Ionosphere Spectheart Sonar Wine Heart Thyroid Tic-tac-toe Vehicle Krvskp
CTSO-1 0.1768 0.0629 0.1811 0.0585 0.0486 0.2037 0.0238 0.2042 0.2888 0.0520
CTSO-2 0.1768 0.0529 0.1736 0.0610 0.0429 0.2056 0.0245 0.2042 0.2970 0.0548
CTSO-3 0.1674 0.0500 0.1717 0.0561 0.0486 0.2056 0.0238 0.1984 0.2905 0.0601
CTSO-4 0.1804 0.0557 0.1755 0.0585 0.0514 0.1963 0.0244 0.1848 0.3024 0.0527
CTSO-5 0.1754 0.0500 0.1792 0.0537 0.0429 0.1815 0.0234 0.2073 0.2911 0.0546
CTSO-6 0.1848 0.0629 0.1811 0.0659 0.0286 0.1926 0.0235 0.2000 0.2941 0.0576
CTSO-7 0.1833 0.0714 0.1736 0.0561 0.0343 0.2056 0.0228 0.1848 0.2959 0.0726
CTSO-8 0.1717 0.0543 0.1849 0.0561 0.0486 0.2093 0.0221 0.1969 0.2994 0.0562
CTSO-9 0.1696 0.0543 0.1604 0.0561 0.0429 0.1907 0.0214 0.1995 0.2929 0.0538
CTSO-10 0.1899 0.0643 0.1792 0.0512 0.0486 0.1852 0.0224 0.1990 0.2970 0.0592
TSO 0.2268 0.0829 0.2283 0.0976 0.0971 0.2667 0.0332 0.2209 0.3124 0.0889
AO 0.2638 0.0929 0.2679 0.1073 0.1286 0.2722 0.0382 0.2613 0.3331 0.1668
SMA 0.1826 0.0857 0.1943 0.1024 0.1114 0.2574 0.0334 0.2555 0.3385 0.1319
WOA 0.2014 0.0643 0.1868 0.0585 0.0600 0.2185 0.0276 0.2105 0.2982 0.0714
Note:
The use of bold demonstrates the best results attained.

The population size for this experiment was set at 10, and the maximum number of
iterations was 100. The suggested 10 different CTSO results were contrasted with standard
TSO. Tables 22 and 23 for each of the 10 benchmark datasets show the proposed CTSO
strategy and all other techniques investigated, together with their minimum and average
fitness values. When Table 22 is examined, the CTSO-9 method gave the best results in five
of the 10 data sets and came first. It was followed by the CTSO-3 method, which gave the

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 35/47
 Table 24 Comparison of the CTSOs approaches based on the average of accuracy measure.
Australian Ionosphere Spectheart Sonar Wine Heart Thyroid Tic-tac-toe Vehicle Krvskp
CTSO-1 78.1884 92.1429 79.0566 92.1951 93.7143 77.5926 96.9792 78.1152 68.8757 92.8326
CTSO-2 78.7681 91.5714 78.1132 92.1951 95.1429 76.6667 97.3056 77.5916 69.6450 92.9421
CTSO-3 76.5942 92.1429 78.4906 92.6829 93.7143 76.2963 97.5486 78.1152 70.0592 91.1111
CTSO-4 77.5362 92.2857 79.8113 93.4146 93.1429 78.5185 97.2292 80.0524 68.9349 92.0344
CTSO-5 79.6377 92.8571 78.8679 92.1951 95.1429 76.6667 97.5278 77.4346 69.4675 92.9890
CTSO-6 78.9130 92.5714 80.1887 93.4146 95.7143 77.5926 97.6181 78.4817 69.8225 92.9890
CTSO-7 79.1304 92.7143 77.9245 91.7073 95.4286 78.3333 97.4167 81.3613 69.3491 91.1894
CTSO-8 78.9130 92.4286 77.7358 93.6585 94.5714 76.6667 97.5417 79.5812 68.9349 92.5509
CTSO-9 79.8551 92.2857 79.4340 91.9512 94.5714 77.4074 97.6458 78.1152 69.2308 93.0673
CTSO-10 79.3478 92.4286 80.1887 93.4146 94.5714 79.4444 97.4583 79.0052 69.1124 91.0798
TSO 70.3623 89.5714 74.3396 89.5122 86.8571 71.8519 96.2778 73.9267 66.0947 86.0094
AO 73.6232 90.7143 73.2075 89.2683 87.1429 72.7778 96.1806 73.8743 66.6864 83.3177
SMA 81.7391 91.4286 80.5660 89.7561 88.8571 74.2593 96.6597 74.4503 66.1538 86.8075
WOA 79.8551 93.5714 81.3208 94.1463 94.0000 78.1481 97.2361 78.9529 70.1775 92.8638
Note:
The use of bold demonstrates the best results attained.

Table 25 Comparison of the CTSOs approaches based on the maximum of accuracy measure.
Australian Ionosphere Spectheart Sonar Wine Heart Thyroid Tic-tac-toe Vehicle Krvskp
CTSO-1 81.8841 95.7143 84.9057 95.1220 97.1429 81.4815 97.5000 80.1047 70.4142 95.9311
CTSO-2 82.6087 94.2857 83.0189 95.1220 97.1429 81.4815 97.9861 81.6754 73.3728 94.9922
CTSO-3 81.1594 94.2857 83.0189 95.1220 97.1429 79.6296 98.2639 82.1990 75.1479 93.5837
CTSO-4 80.4348 94.2857 84.9057 95.1220 94.2857 85.1852 97.5000 82.1990 70.4142 94.3662
CTSO-5 82.6087 95.7143 81.1321 95.1220 97.1429 85.1852 97.9167 79.5812 72.1893 94.9922
CTSO-6 82.6087 94.2857 83.0189 95.1220 97.1429 81.4815 98.0556 81.1518 72.1893 95.1487
CTSO-7 82.6087 95.7143 84.9057 95.1220 97.1429 85.1852 98.1944 82.1990 71.0059 92.6448
CTSO-8 81.1594 95.7143 83.0189 97.5610 97.1429 85.1852 97.9861 81.1518 70.4142 96.0876
CTSO-9 84.0580 95.7143 84.9057 95.1220 100.0000 83.3333 98.1944 82.1990 72.1893 94.8357
CTSO-10 84.0580 92.8571 83.0189 97.5610 97.1429 85.1852 97.6389 81.1518 71.0059 93.8967
TSO 72.4638 91.4286 77.3585 90.2439 91.4286 74.0741 97.2222 76.4398 68.0473 90.7668
AO 78.2609 91.4286 75.4717 90.2439 91.4286 75.9259 96.8056 76.9634 68.6391 89.8279
SMA 82.6087 92.8571 81.1321 90.2439 91.4286 75.9259 97.2222 75.3927 67.4556 90.9233
WOA 82.6087 94.2857 83.0189 95.1220 94.2857 79.6296 97.7083 79.5812 71.5976 94.0532
Note:
The use of bold demonstrates the best results attained.

best results in four out of 10 datasets. When Table 23 is examined, CTSO-1, CTSO-3,
CTSO-5, and CTSO-9 methods achieved the best results in 2 out of 10 data sets. CTSO-2
and CTSO-8 did not find good results on any dataset.
Tables 24 and 25 for each of the 10 benchmark datasets show the proposed CTSO
strategy and all other techniques investigated, together with their average and maximum
accuracy measures. When Table 24 is examined, WOA method achieved the best results in

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 36/47
 Table 26 Comparison of for three bar truss problem.
Australian Ionosphere Spectheart Sonar Wine Heart Thyroid Tic-tac-toe Vehicle Krvskp
CTSO-1 5.7 16.6 21.1 29.6 6 5.7 10.5 5.7 9.4 19.6
CTSO-2 5.9 15.8 22.5 29.9 6.6 5.8 10 5.3 9.5 19.4
CTSO-3 6.5 14.4 20.2 30.3 6.8 5 9.9 5.5 8.1 18.6
CTSO-4 6 16.5 21.3 28.9 6.1 5.2 10.2 6 9.2 19.3
CTSO-5 5.6 17 21.8 29.1 6.5 6.7 9.6 5.6 8.7 19.5
CTSO-6 6.1 15.8 21.2 29.9 5.6 5.8 9.9 5.5 8.7 20
CTSO-7 5.8 15.4 20.2 32.2 6.1 5.6 10 6 9 19.5
CTSO-8 6.1 15.5 21.4 28.6 6.1 6.1 10.5 6 8.6 18.5
CTSO-9 6 16.4 21.6 29.4 6.2 5.7 10.3 5.5 9 19.2
CTSO-10 6.1 15.6 20.1 28.4 5.6 5.4 10.4 5.6 8.2 19.2
TSO 6.9 16.2 19.7 29.5 5.6 5.5 9.4 5.7 9.4 19.2
AO 5.3 16.4 21 30.1 5.9 5.8 10.9 5.4 9.3 19.1
SMA 1.1 7.3 1 29.7 5.7 3.5 7.4 6.7 9.3 20.3
WOA 2.6 8.3 11.9 22.4 5.1 5.6 7.4 6 7.5 20.9

4 out of 10 data sets and were ranked first according to the average accuracy measure value.
The CTSO-1, CTSO-2, CTSO-3, CTSO-4, CTSO-5, CTSO-8, TSO, and AO methods did
not produce a high value in any of the 10 datasets. When Table 25 is examined, the CTSO-
9 method obtained the highest value in 5 out of 10 data sets according to the maximum
accuracy metric. It is followed by CTSO-6 and CTSO-7, producing the highest value in 4
out of 10 datasets. The CTSO-2, CTSO-6, TSO, AO, SMA, and WOA methods could not
gain superiority in any data set.
Table 26 presents a comparison of CTSO approaches and competitive metaheuristic
methods according to selected features. When Table 26 is examined, it is seen that the
SMA method chooses the least feature in 5 out of 10 data sets. In addition, it was seen that
CTSO-9, which obtained the highest accuracy value in the majority of data sets, obtained
the highest results by choosing an average number of features compared to other methods.

CONCLUSION
TSO is a recently developed physics-based method that draws inspiration from the
transient behavior of switched electrical circuits with storage components like inductance
and capacitance. Our motivation was that this method is very new, tends to be stuck with
local optimal solutions, has difficulties maintaining the balance between exploration and
exploitation, and is not working to improve the performance of TSO. In this article, a
number of chaotic maps have been incorporated in order to customize the TSO settings. By
using chaotic maps with ergodic, irregular, and stochastic features in chaotic map TSO, it is
aimed at avoiding local solutions more easily compared to the TSO method. In this way,
the balance between exploration and exploitation has been achieved, and global
convergence has increased. Ten distinct chaotic maps have been studied on twenty-nine
different benchmark test functions, five different real-world engineering problems, and 10

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 37/47
 different UCI standard datasets for feature selection. The findings demonstrated that the
use of chaotic maps is capable of greatly enhancing TSO’s overall performance in a general
sense. The approach that employs the Gauss and sinusoidal maps for supplying the values
of parameter c1 has been determined to be the best chaotic TSO after being put through a
series of comparisons with other chaotic TSOs. Gaussian and sinusoidal maps create a
better balance between exploration and exploitation, which prevents the algorithm from
being stuck in a local optimal state while it is in the process of optimizing its parameters.
This is the reason for the enhanced performance. The results of the simulation
demonstrated that Gaussian and Sinusoidal maps performed better than the standard TSO
for the majority of the benchmark functions, that Sinusoidal maps performed better than
the standard TSO for the majority of the real-world engineering problems, and that CTSOs
generally suggested in the feature selection performed better than the standard TSO
overall. According to the findings of the statistical analysis, customized algorithms clearly
improve both the dependability of the global optimality and the quality of the outcomes.
Due to the fact that chaotic TSOs are relatively new, one potentially fruitful direction for
future study would be to investigate how these algorithms perform in a parallel or
distributed setting. The proposed CTSO method can also be applied promisingly in many
different fields. Among them, many different fields such as machine learning, artificial
intelligence, image processing, different real-world engineering problems, data mining,
and big data are suitable for the application of algorithms. Like other proposed
metaheuristic optimization methods, CTSO cannot guarantee that its solution will always
equal the global optimum, due to its stochastic nature.

APPENDIX 1: SPEED REDUCER PROBLEM

Minimize:
   
f ðxÞ ¼ 0:7854x22 x1 14:9334x3  43:0934 þ 3:3333x32 þ 0:7854 x5 x72 þ x4 x62
   
 1:508x1 x72 þ x62 þ 7:477 x73 þ x63

Subject to:

g1 ðxÞ ¼ x1 x22 x3 þ 27  0

g2 ðxÞ ¼ x1 x22 x32 þ 397:5  0
g3 ðxÞ ¼ x2 x64 x3 x43 þ 1:93  0
g4 ðxÞ ¼ x2 x74 x3 x53 þ 1:93  0
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3
16:91  106 þ ð745x4 x21 x31 Þ  1100  0
2
g5 ðxÞ ¼ 10x6
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3
157:5  106 þ ð745x5 x21 x31 Þ  850  0
2
g6 ðxÞ ¼ 10x7
g7 ðxÞ ¼ x2 x3  40  0
g8 ðxÞ ¼ x1 x21 þ 5  0
g9 ðxÞ ¼ x1 x21  12  0
g10 ðxÞ ¼ 1:5x6  x4 þ 1:9  0
g11 ðxÞ ¼ 1:1x7  x5 þ 1:9  0

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 38/47
 with bounds:

0:7  x2  0:8; 17  x3  28; 2:6  x1  3:6; 5  x7  5:5; 7:3  x5 ; x4  8:3;

2:9  x6  3:9

APPENDIX 2: TENSION COMPRESSION SPRING DESIGN

PROBLEM
Minimize:

f ðxÞ ¼ ðx3 þ 2Þx12 x2

Subject to:

x23 x3
g1 ðx Þ ¼ 1  0
71785x14
4x22  x1 x2 1
g2 ðx Þ ¼ þ 0
12566ðx2 x1 3
x14 Þ 5108x12
140:45x1
g3 ðx Þ ¼ 1  0
x23 x3
x1 þ x2
g4 ðx Þ ¼ 10
1:5

with bounds:
0:05  x1  2:00; 0:25  x2  1:30; 2:00  x3  15:0

APPENDIX 3: WELDED BEAM DESIGN PROBLEM

Minimize:

f ðxÞ ¼ 1:10471x12 x2 þ 0:04811x3 x4 ð14:0 þ x2 Þ

Subject to:
g1 ðxÞ ¼ sðxÞ  smax  0
g2 ðxÞ ¼ rðxÞ  rmax  0
g3 ðxÞ ¼ x1  x4  0
g4 ðxÞ ¼ 1:10471x12 þ 0:04811x3 x4 ð14:0 þ x2 Þ  5:0  0
g5 ðxÞ ¼ 0:125  x1  0
g6 ðxÞ ¼ dðxÞ  dmax  0
g 7 ð x Þ ¼ P  Pc ð x Þ  0
where;
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
x2 6000 MR x2 
sðxÞ ¼ ðs0 Þ2 þ ð2s0 s00 Þ þ ðs00 Þ ; s0 ¼ pffiffiffi ; s00 ¼
2
; M ¼ 6000 14:0 þ ;
2R 2x1 x2 J 2
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
x22 x1 þ x3 2
R¼ þ
4 2

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 39/47
 
pffiffiffi x2 x1 þ x3 2 504000 2:1952
J¼ x1 x2 2 2 þ ; rðxÞ ¼ ; dðxÞ ¼ ;
12 2 2
x4 x3 x4 x33
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 0 rffiffiffiffiffiffi1
x32 x46 x3 E
4:013E
Pc ðxÞ ¼ 36 B1  4GC
B
C
196 @ 28 A
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 0 rffiffiffiffiffiffi1
x32 x46 x3 E
4:013E
Pc ðxÞ ¼ 36 B1  4GC
B
C
196 @ 28 A

smax ¼ 13600psi; rmax ¼ 30000psi; dmax ¼ 0:25in; E ¼ 30  106 psi; G ¼ 12  106 psi

with bounds:
0:125  x1  2; 0:1  x4  2 ve 0:1  x2 ; x3  10

APPENDIX 4: PRESSURE VESSEL PROBLEM

Minimize:

f ðxÞ ¼ 0:6224x1 x3 x4 þ 1:7781x2 x32 þ 3:1661x12 x4 þ 19:84x12 x3

Subject to:
g1 ðxÞ ¼ x1 þ 0:0193x3  0
g2 ðxÞ ¼ x2 þ 0:00954x3  0
4
g3 ðxÞ ¼ px32 x4  px33 þ 1296000  0
3
g4 ðxÞ ¼ x4  240  0

with bounds:
0:51  x1 ; x2  99:49; 10  x3 ; x4  200

APPENDIX 5: THREE BAR TRUSS DESIGN PROBLEM

Minimize:
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
f ðxÞ ¼ l x2 þ 2 2x1

Subject to:
x2
g1 ðx Þ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi P  r  0
2x2 x1 þ 2x12
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
x2 þ 2x1
g2 ðx Þ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi P  r  0
2x2 x1 þ 2x12

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 40/47
 1
g3 ðx Þ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi P  r  0
x1 þ 2x2

where
l ¼ 100; P ¼ 2; and r ¼ 2

with bounds:
0  x1 ; x2  1

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DECLARATIONS

Funding
The authors received no funding for this work.

Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author Contributions
 Osman Altay conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments,
analyzed the data, performed the computation work, prepared figures and/or tables,
authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.
 Elif Varol Altay conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments,
analyzed the data, performed the computation work, prepared figures and/or tables,
authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

Data Availability
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
Data and code are available at Zenodo and GitHub:
ALTAY, OSMAN, & VAROL ALTAY, ELİF. (2023). A novel chaotic transient search
optimization algorithm for global optimization, real-world engineering problems and
feature selection (1.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7992380.
https://github.com/osmanaltay1905/Chaotic-transient-search-optimization-algorithm.
The Australian, ionosphere, spectheart, sonar, wine, heart, thyroid, tic-tac-toe, vehicle
and krvskp datasets are available at UCI:
- Australian dataset: https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Statlog+%28Australian
+Credit+Approval%29.
- Ionosphere dataset: https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Ionosphere.
- Spectheart dataset: https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/SPECT+Heart.
- Sonar dataset: https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Connectionist+Bench+%
28Sonar%2C+Mines+vs.+Rocks%29.
- Wine dataset: https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Wine.
- Heart dataset: https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Statlog+%28Heart%29.

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 41/47
 - Thyroid dataset: https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Thyroid+Disease.
- Tic-tac-toe dataset: https://archive.ics.uci.edu/dataset/101/tic+tac+toe+endgame.
- Vehicle dataset: https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/Statlog+%28Vehicle
+Silhouettes%29.
- Krvskp dataset: https://archive.ics.uci.edu/dataset/22/chess+king+rook+vs+king
+pawn.

Supplemental Information
Supplemental information for this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/
peerj-cs.1526#supplemental-information.

REFERENCES
Abdollahzadeh B, Gharehchopogh FS, Mirjalili S. 2021. African vultures optimization algorithm:
a new nature-inspired metaheuristic algorithm for global optimization problems. Computers and
Industrial Engineering 158(4):107408 DOI 10.1016/j.cie.2021.107408.
Abualigah L, Diabat A. 2022. Chaotic binary group search optimizer for feature selection. Expert
Systems with Applications 192(11):116368 DOI 10.1016/j.eswa.2021.116368.
Abualigah L, Diabat A, Mirjalili S, Abd Elaziz M, Gandomi AH. 2021a. The arithmetic
optimization algorithm. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering
376(2):113609 DOI 10.1016/j.cma.2020.113609.
Abualigah L, Yousri D, Abd Elaziz M, Ewees AA, Al-qaness MAA, Gandomi AH. 2021b. Aquila
optimizer: a novel meta-heuristic optimization algorithm. Computers and Industrial Engineering
157(11):107250 DOI 10.1016/j.cie.2021.107250.
Agrawal A, Tripathi S. 2021. Particle swarm optimization with adaptive inertia weight based on
cumulative binomial probability. Evolutionary Intelligence 14(2):305–313
DOI 10.1007/s12065-018-0188-7.
Agushaka JO, Ezugwu AE, Abualigah L. 2022. Dwarf mongoose optimization algorithm.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 391(10):114570
DOI 10.1016/j.cma.2022.114570.
Ahmadianfar I, Bozorg-Haddad O, Chu X. 2020. Gradient-based optimizer: a new metaheuristic
optimization algorithm. Information Sciences 540:131–159 DOI 10.1016/j.ins.2020.06.037.
Altay EV. 2022a. Hybrid Archimedes optimization algorithm enhanced with mutualism scheme
for global optimization problems. Artificial Intelligence Review 56(5):1–62
DOI 10.1007/s10462-022-10340-z.
Altay EV. 2022b. Solution of process synthesis problem using metaheuristic optimization
algorithms. In: 2022 Innovations in Intelligent Systems and Applications Conference (ASYU).
Piscataway: IEEE, 1–5.
Altay O. 2022c. Chaotic slime mould optimization algorithm for global optimization. Artificial
Intelligence Review 55(5):3979–4040 DOI 10.1007/s10462-021-10100-5.
Altay EV, Alatas B. 2020. Randomness as source for inspiring solution search methods: music
based approaches. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 537(3):122650
DOI 10.1016/j.physa.2019.122650.
Altay EV, Alatas B. 2021. Differential evolution and sine cosine algorithm based novel hybrid
multi-objective approaches for numerical association rule mining. Information Sciences
554(10):198–221 DOI 10.1016/j.ins.2020.12.055.

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 42/47
 Altay O, Varol E. 2023. A novel hybrid multilayer perceptron neural network with improved grey
wolf optimizer. Neural Computing and Applications 35(1):529–556
DOI 10.1007/s00521-022-07775-4.
Arora J. 2004. Introduction to optimum design. NewYork: Elsevier.
Arora S, Anand P. 2019. Chaotic grasshopper optimization algorithm for global optimization.
Neural Computing and Applications 31(8):4385–4405 DOI 10.1007/s00521-018-3343-2.
Balochian S, Baloochian H. 2019. Social mimic optimization algorithm and engineering
applications. Expert Systems with Applications 134(11):178–191
DOI 10.1016/j.eswa.2019.05.035.
Baykaso A. 2015. Weighted superposition attraction (WSA): a swarm intelligence algorithm for
optimization problems—Part 2: constrained optimization. Applied Soft Computing 37(2):396–
415 DOI 10.1016/j.asoc.2015.08.052.
Bhadoriya JS, Gupta AR. 2022. A novel transient search optimization for optimal allocation of
multiple distributed generator in the radial electrical distribution network. International Journal
of Emerging Electric Power Systems 23(1):23–45 DOI 10.1515/ijeeps-2021-0001.
Bianchi L, Dorigo M, Gambardella LM, Gutjahr WJ. 2009. A survey on metaheuristics for
stochastic combinatorial optimization. Natural Computing 8(2):239–287
DOI 10.1007/s11047-008-9098-4.
Bingol H, Alatas B. 2020. Chaos based optics inspired optimization algorithms as global solution
search approach. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 141(3):110434 DOI 10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110434.
Birbil Ş.I, Fang SC. 2003. An electromagnetism-like mechanism for global optimization. Journal of
Global Optimization 25(3):263–282 DOI 10.1023/A:1022452626305.
Czerniak JM, Zarzycki H, Ewald D. 2017. AAO as a new strategy in modeling and simulation of
constructional problems optimization. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 76(14):22–33
DOI 10.1016/j.simpat.2017.04.001.
Daliri A, Asghari A. 2022. The water optimization algorithm: a novel metaheuristic for solving
optimization problems. Applied Intelligence 52(15):17990–18029
DOI 10.1007/s10489-022-03397-4.
Das M, Roy A, Maity S, Kar S, Sengupta S. 2022. Solvıng fuzzy dynamıc shıp routıng and
schedulıng problem through modıfıed genetıc algorıthm. Decision Making: Applications in
Management and Engineering 5(2):329–361 DOI 10.31181/dmame181221030d.
Demir FB, Tuncer T, Kocamaz AF. 2020. A chaotic optimization method based on logistic-sine
map for numerical function optimization. Neural Computing and Applications 32(17):14227–
14239 DOI 10.1007/s00521-020-04815-9.
Devan PAM, Hussin FA, Ibrahim RB, Bingi K, Nagarajapandian M, Assaad M. 2022. An
arithmetic-trigonometric optimization algorithm with application for control of real-time
pressure process plant. Sensors 22(2):1–26 DOI 10.3390/s22020617.
Dhiman G. 2021. ESA: a hybrid bio-inspired metaheuristic optimization approach for engineering
problems. Engineering with Computers 37(1):323–353 DOI 10.1007/s00366-019-00826-w.
Erol OK, Eksin I. 2006. A new optimization method: big bang-big crunch. Advances in Engineering
Software 37(2):106–111 DOI 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2005.04.005.
Farah A, Belazi A. 2018. A novel chaotic Jaya algorithm for unconstrained numerical
optimization. Nonlinear Dynamics 93(3):1451–1480 DOI 10.1007/s11071-018-4271-5.

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 43/47
 Faramarzi A, Heidarinejad M, Stephens B, Mirjalili S. 2020. Equilibrium optimizer: a novel
optimization algorithm. Knowledge-Based Systems 191:105190
DOI 10.1016/j.knosys.2019.105190.
Fatani A, Elaziz MABD, Dahou A, Al-qaness MAA, Lu S. 2021. IoT intrusion detection system
using deep learning and enhanced transient search optimization. IEEE Access 9:123448–123464
DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3109081.
Formato RA. 2009. Central force optimization: a new deterministic gradient-like optimization
metaheuristic. Opsearch 46(1):25–51 DOI 10.1007/s12597-009-0003-4.
Gandomi AH, Yang XS, Alavi AH. 2013. Cuckoo search algorithm: a metaheuristic approach to
solve structural optimization problems. Engineering with Computers 29(1):17–35
DOI 10.1007/s00366-011-0241-y.
Gharehchopogh FS, Maleki I, Dizaji ZA. 2021. Chaotic vortex search algorithm: metaheuristic
algorithm for feature selection. Evolutionary Intelligence 15(3):1777–1808
DOI 10.1007/s12065-021-00590-1.
Hasanien HM, Shaheen MAM, Turky RA, Qais MH, Jurado F, Alghuwainem S, Kamel S,
Tostado-v M. 2022. Precise modeling of PEM fuel cell using a novel enhanced transient search
optimization algorithm. Energy 247(16):123530 DOI 10.1016/j.energy.2022.123530.
Hashim FA, Houssein EH, Mabrouk MS, Al-Atabany W, Mirjalili S. 2019. Henry gas solubility
optimization: a novel physics-based algorithm. Future Generation Computer Systems
101(4):646–667 DOI 10.1016/j.future.2019.07.015.
Hashim FA, Hussain K, Houssein EH, Mabrouk MS, Al-Atabany W. 2021. Archimedes
optimization algorithm: a new metaheuristic algorithm for solving optimization problems.
Applied Intelligence 51(3):1531–1551 DOI 10.1007/s10489-020-01893-z.
He X, Zhou Y. 2018. Enhancing the performance of differential evolution with covariance matrix
self-adaptation. Applied Soft Computing Journal 64:227–243 DOI 10.1016/j.asoc.2017.11.050.
Heidari AA, Mirjalili S, Faris H, Aljarah I, Mafarja M, Chen H. 2019. Harris hawks optimization:
algorithm and applications. Future Generation Computer Systems 97:849–872
DOI 10.1016/j.future.2019.02.028.
Hosseini HS. 2011. Principal components analysis by the galaxy-based search algorithm: a novel
metaheuristic for continuous optimisation. International Journal of Computational Science and
Engineering 6(1/2):132 DOI 10.1504/IJCSE.2011.041221.
Karami H, Anaraki MV, Farzin S, Mirjalili S. 2021. Flow direction algorithm (FDA): a novel
optimization approach for solving optimization problems. Computers and Industrial
Engineering 156(4):107224 DOI 10.1016/j.cie.2021.107224.
Kaur G, Arora S. 2018. Chaotic whale optimization algorithm. Journal of Computational Design
and Engineering 5(3):275–284 DOI 10.1016/j.jcde.2017.12.006.
Khishe M, Mosavi MR. 2020. Chimp optimization algorithm. Expert Systems with Applications
149(1):113338 DOI 10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113338.
Kohli M, Arora S. 2018. Journal of computational design and engineering chaotic grey wolf
optimization algorithm for constrained optimization problems. Journal of Computational
Design and Engineering 5(4):458–472 DOI 10.1016/j.jcde.2017.02.005.
Kutlu Onay F, Aydemіr SB. 2022. Chaotic hunger games search optimization algorithm for global
optimization and engineering problems. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation
192(10):514–536 DOI 10.1016/j.matcom.2021.09.014.
Li H, Liu J, Chen L, Bai J, Sun Y, Lu K. 2019. Chaos-enhanced moth-flame optimization
algorithm for global optimization. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics 30(6):1144–
1159 DOI 10.21629/JSEE.2019.06.10.

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 44/47
 Li XD, Wang JS, Hao WK, Zhang M, Wang M. 2022. Chaotic arithmetic optimization algorithm.
Applied Intelligence 52(14):16718–16757 DOI 10.1007/s10489-021-03037-3.
Madić M, Gostimirović M, Rodić D, Radovanović M, Coteaţă M. 2022. Mathematical modelling
of the CO2 laser cutting process using genetic programming. Facta Universitatis, Series:
Mechanical Engineering 20(3):665–676 DOI 10.22190/FUME210810003M.
Meng XB, Li HX, Gao XZ. 2019. An adaptive reinforcement learning-based bat algorithm for
structural design problems. International Journal of Bio-Inspired Computation 14(2):114–124
DOI 10.1504/IJBIC.2019.101639.
Mirjalili S. 2015. Moth-flame optimization algorithm: a novel nature-inspired heuristic paradigm.
Knowledge-Based Systems 89:228–249 DOI 10.1016/j.knosys.2015.07.006.
Mirjalili S. 2016. SCA: a sine cosine algorithm for solving optimization problems. Knowledge-
Based Systems 96(63):120–133 DOI 10.1016/j.knosys.2015.12.022.
Mirjalili S, Gandomi AH, Mirjalili SZ, Saremi S, Faris H, Mirjalili SM. 2017. Salp swarm
algorithm: a bio-inspired optimizer for engineering design problems. Advances in Engineering
Software 114:163–191 DOI 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2017.07.002.
Mirjalili S, Lewis A. 2016. The whale optimization algorithm. Advances in Engineering Software
95(12):51–67 DOI 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2016.01.008.
Mirjalili S, Mirjalili SM, Hatamlou A. 2016. Multi-verse optimizer: a nature-inspired algorithm
for global optimization. Neural Computing and Applications 27(2):495–513
DOI 10.1007/s00521-015-1870-7.
Mirjalili S, Mirjalili SM, Lewis A. 2014. Grey wolf optimizer. Advances in Engineering Software
69:46–61 DOI 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2013.12.007.
Mirrashid M, Naderpour H. 2022. Transit search: an optimization algorithm based on exoplanet
exploration. Results in Control and Optimization 7(5):100127 DOI 10.1016/j.rico.2022.100127.
Mohammed HM, Rashid TA. 2021. Chaotic fitness-dependent optimizer for planning and
engineering design. Soft Computing 25(22):14281–14295 DOI 10.1007/s00500-021-06135-z.
Mzili T, Riffi ME, Mzili I. 2022. A novel dıscrete rat swarm optımızatıon (drso) algorıthm for
solvıng the travelıng salesman problem. Decision Making: Applications in Management and
Engineering 5(2):287–299 DOI 10.31181/dmame0318062022m.
Negi G, Kumar A, Pant S, Ram M. 2021. Optimization of complex system reliability using hybrid
grey wolf optimizer. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering 4(2):241–
256 DOI 10.31181/dmame210402241n.
Pierezan J, dos Santos Coelho L, Cocco Mariani V, Hochsteiner de Vasconcelos Segundo E,
Prayogo D. 2021. Chaotic coyote algorithm applied to truss optimization problems. Computers
and Structures 242(7–8):106353 DOI 10.1016/j.compstruc.2020.106353.
Prayogo D, Cheng MY, Wu YW, Herdany AA, Prayogo H. 2018. Differential big bang-big crunch
algorithm for construction-engineering design optimization. Automation in Construction
85(9):290–304 DOI 10.1016/j.autcon.2017.10.019.
Qais MH, Hasanien HM. 2020. Optimal transient search algorithm-based PI controllers for
enhancing low voltage ride-through ability of grid-linked PMSG-based wind turbine. Electronics
9(11):1807 DOI 10.3390/electronics9111807.
Qais MH, Hasanien HM, Alghuwainem S. 2020. Transient search optimization: a new meta-
heuristic optimization algorithm. Applied Intelligence 50(11):3926–3941
DOI 10.1007/s10489-020-01727-y.

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 45/47
 Qais MH, Hasanien HM, Turky RA, Alghuwainem S, Tostado-v M, Jurado F. 2022. Circle
search algorithm: a geometry-based metaheuristic optimization algorithm. Mathematics
10(10):1626 DOI 10.3390/math10101626.
Rizk-Allah RM, Hassanien AE, Bhattacharyya S. 2018. Chaotic crow search algorithm for
fractional optimization problems. Applied Soft Computing Journal 71(2014):1161–1175
DOI 10.1016/j.asoc.2018.03.019.
Sadhu T, Chowdhury S, Shubham M, Jagannath R, Chakrabarty J, Lahiri SK. 2023. A
comparatıve study of metaheurıstıcs algorıthms based on theır performance of complex
benchmark problems. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering 6(1):341–
364 DOI 10.31181/dmame0306102022r.
Sadollah A, Bahreininejad A, Eskandar H, Hamdi M. 2013. Mine blast algorithm: a new
population based algorithm for solving constrained engineering optimization problems. Applied
Soft Computing Journal 13(5):2592–2612 DOI 10.1016/j.asoc.2012.11.026.
Sayed GI, Darwish A, Hassanien AE. 2018. A new chaotic multi-verse optimization algorithm for
solving engineering optimization problems. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial
Intelligence 30(2):293–317 DOI 10.1080/0952813X.2018.1430858.
Sayed GI, Khoriba G, Haggag MH. 2018. A novel chaotic salp swarm algorithm for global
optimization and feature selection. Applied Intelligence 48(10):3462–3481
DOI 10.1007/s10489-018-1158-6.
Sayed GI, Tharwat A, Hassanien AE. 2019. Chaotic dragonfly algorithm: an improved
metaheuristic algorithm for feature selection. Applied Intelligence 49(1):188–205
DOI 10.1007/s10489-018-1261-8.
Talatahari S, Azizi M, Gandomi AH. 2021. Material generation algorithm: a novel metaheuristic
algorithm for optimization of engineering problems. Processes 9(5):1–35
DOI 10.3390/pr9050859.
Tam JH, Chao Ong Z, Ismail Z, Chin B, Shin A, Khoo Y, Ang BC, Khoo SY. 2019. A new hybrid
GA−ACO−PSO algorithm for solving various engineering design problems. International
Journal of Computer Mathematics 96(5):883–919 DOI 10.1080/00207160.2018.1463438.
Tuba E, Capor-Hrosik R, Alihodzic A, Jovanovic R, Tuba M. 2018. Chaotic elephant herding
optimization algorithm. In: SAMI 2018—IEEE 16th World Symposium on Applied Machine
Intelligence and Informatics Dedicated to the Memory of Pioneer of Robotics Antal (Tony) K.
Bejczy, Proceedings. 2018-Febru213–216 DOI 10.1109/SAMI.2018.8324842.
Tzanetos A, Dounias G. 2020. Sonar inspired optimization (SIO) in engineering applications.
Evolving Systems 11(3):531–539 DOI 10.1007/s12530-018-9250-z.
Varol Altay E, Alatas B. 2020. Bird swarm algorithms with chaotic mapping. Artificial Intelligence
Review 53(2):1373–1414 DOI 10.1007/s10462-019-09704-9.
Wang X, Deng Y, Duan H. 2018. Edge-based target detection for unmanned aerial vehicles using
competitive bird swarm algorithm. Aerospace Science and Technology 78(11):708–720
DOI 10.1016/j.ast.2018.04.047.
Yang X, Gandomi A, Talatahari S, Alavi A. 2012. Metaheuristics in water, geotechnical and
transport engineering. Amsterdam: Newnes.
Yang L, Gao S, Yang H, Cai Z, Lei Z, Todo Y. 2021. Adaptive chaotic spherical evolution
algorithm. Memetic Computing 13(3):383–411 DOI 10.1007/s12293-021-00341-w.

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 46/47
 Zhang Q, Chen H, Luo J, Xu Y, Wu C, Li C. 2018. Chaos enhanced bacterial foraging
optimization for global optimization. IEEE Access 6:64905–64919
DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2876996.
Zhang C, Ding S. 2021. A stochastic configuration network based on chaotic sparrow search
algorithm. Knowledge-Based Systems 220(10):106924 DOI 10.1016/j.knosys.2021.106924.
Zhang Y, Jin Z. 2020. Group teaching optimization algorithm: a novel metaheuristic method for
solving global optimization problems. Expert Systems with Applications 148(2):113246
DOI 10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113246.
Zolfi K. 2023. Gold rush optimizer. a new population-based metaheuristic algorithm. Operations
Research and Decisions 33(1):113–150 DOI 10.37190/ord230108.

Altay and Varol Altay (2023), PeerJ Comput. Sci., DOI 10.7717/peerj-cs.1526 47/47