This paper is accepted for presentation at IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (IEEE SSCI 2017), Hawaii, USA, 2017.

Opposition-based Ensemble
Micro-Differential Evolution
Hojjat Salehinejad∗, Shahryar Rahnamayan†, and Hamid R. Tizhoosh‡
∗ Department

arXiv:1709.06909v2 [cs.NE] 21 Sep 2017

† Department

of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa, Canada
‡ KIMIA Lab, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada
hojjat.salehinejad@mail.utoronto.ca, shahryar.rahnamayan@uoit.ca, tizhoosh@uwaterloo.ca

Abstract—Differential evolution (DE) algorithm with a small
population size is called Micro-DE (MDE). A small population
size decreases the computational complexity but also reduces the
exploration ability of DE by limiting the population diversity.
In this paper, we propose the idea of combining ensemble mutation scheme selection and opposition-based learning concepts
to enhance the diversity of population in MDE at mutation
and selection stages. The proposed algorithm enhances the
diversity of population by generating a random mutation scale
factor per individual and per dimension, randomly assigning
a mutation scheme to each individual in each generation, and
diversifying individuals selection using opposition-based learning.
This approach is easy to implement and does not require the
setting of mutation scheme selection and mutation scale factor.
Experimental results are conducted for a variety of objective
functions with low and high dimensionality on the CEC BlackBox Optimization Benchmarking 2015 (CEC-BBOB 2015). The
results show superior performance of the proposed algorithm
compared to the other micro-DE algorithms.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Population size plays an important role in performance
of the population-based algorithms such as ant colony optimization [1] and differential evolution (DE) [2]. DE with
a small population size is called micro-DE (MDE) [3]. A
small population size decreases the exploration ability of DE.
The degrading performance is mainly due to the generation
of fewer candidate individuals by the mutation scheme. This
is while a large population size provides higher exploration
ability, at the cost of more computational time.
The lack of diversity in the population of MDE to explore
the problem landscape can cause stagnation or premature
convergence problems. The stagnation problem refers to a
diverse and scattered population that cannot converge to a local
optimum [3]. From the other side, the lack of diversity in generating new individuals causes trapping of individuals in local
optimums, generally referred to as premature convergence. A
trade-off between the population size and evolution method of
population improves the performance of algorithm [4].
The standard version of DE uses a fixed value for mutation
scale factor and a fixed mutation scheme. The MDE algorithm
mostly suffers from lack of diversity in the population to
generate new individuals [2]. By vectorized randomizing the
mutation scale factor (called MDEVM), which is a random
mutation scale factor for each dimension of each individual,
the micro-DE performs much better than utilizing a static

mutation scale factor [3]. Methods such as opposition-based
DE (ODE) [5] and centroid DE [6]–[8] have solely improved
the performance of DE algorithm by proper diversifying the
population in DE algorithm. These methods can also increase
the performance of MDE.
In this paper, we enhance the MDEVM algorithm [2], [3],
[9], [10], by utilizing the idea of ensemble mutation scheme
and opposition-based learning (OBL) [11] to diversify the
population. OBL generates the opposite of the current individuals (candidate solutions) and selects the best individuals
with respect to objective function values [12]. At the mutation
stage, each individual randomly selects a mutation scheme
at each generation, called ensemble mutation scheme [4].
Combination of vectorized randomized mutation scale factor,
ensemble mutation scheme, and OBL, has highly enhanced the
performance of MDE. We call this method opposition-based
ensemble micro-DE (OEMDE).
II. R ELATED W ORKS
The main control parameters of DE algorithm are population size, mutation scale factor, crossover rate, and mutation
scheme. Proper selection of these parameters helps to improve
the performance of MDE.
A. Mutation Scale Factor
DE is about the difference of two or more vectors. Amplification of the difference vector is adjustable by the mutation
scale factor F which controls the evolving rate of the population. A small mutation scale factor decreases the exploration
and may result in premature convergence. This is while a large
mutation scale factor increases the exploration which results in
a longer convergence time. The optimal value of F is usually
set based on the nature of the problem and experimental observations [13]. MDEVM algorithm [3] relaxes static selection of
F as a hyper-parameter by generating a random F ∈ (0.1, 1.5)
for each dimension of an individual in the population [3]. This
randomness adds diversity to the population by amplifying
the differences vectors in various scales. The experimental
results in [2] have demonstrated outstanding performance of
this technique for diversity enhancement.
B. Mutation Scheme and Crossover Rate
The recommended range for the crossover rate is [0.3,0.9]
in the literature [14]. However, the optimal value is problem

dependent. Aadaptive parameters can change as the evolution
proceeds, such as self-adaptive DE (SDE) [15] and memetic
algorithm.
It is possible to use a pool of mutation strategies and a pool
of values for each control parameter of the algorithm [16].
Ensemble algorithms use a pool of mutation schemes with
two members, DE/rand/1 and DE/best/1. The strategy is to
combine random parameters setting and mutation schemes to
enhance convergence rate while maintaining the high diversity
of population [17]. The proposed method in [18] switches
the scale factor and crossover rate in a uniform-random
strategy for each individual of the population. The switching
is performed within a particular range of the variables. A
pool of mutation schemes is also utilized and the individuals
use either the DE/rand/1 or DE/best/1 scheme. In order to
implement the DE on systems with limited resources for realtime applications, such as embedded systems, a version of
DE algorithm, called compact DE (cDE), is proposed [19],
[20]. This algorithm uses probabilistic representation of the
population, instead of the whole population for optimization.
The logic behind cDE is producing candidates by sampling
an evolving distribution in every generation. However, cDE
algorithm suffers from premature convergence problem, particularly for high dimensional problems. This refers to the shrinkage of the probability function which models the population
[19]. An ensemble version of cDE is proposed in [19].
The memetic algorithms are hybrid evolutionary algorithms.
These algorithms can solve optimization problems by utilizing
deterministic local search within the evolutionary process. This
technique along with the cDE algorithm is used to develop
optimization algorithms on control cards [21]. The objective
is to design an optimization algorithm that can function in
absence of full power computational systems.
A novel type of ensemble DE, called MPEDE, is proposed
in [22]. It is a multi-population based approach which deploys
a dynamic ensemble of multiple mutation strategies. It controls
parameters of the algorithms such as mutation scale factor
and crossover rate [23]. This method uses the “current-topbest/1”, “current-to-rand/1”, and “rand/1” mutation schemes
[22]. Another method for unconstrained continuous optimization problems is µJADE [24]. It is an adaptive DE with a small
population size approach. The µJADE uses a new mutation
operator, called current-by-rand-to-pbest [24].
Random perturbation method utilizes the mutation idea from
the genetic algorithm (GA) to randomly change the population
vector parameters with a fixes probability [25]. A modified DE
with smaller population size can add disturbance to the mutation operation [26]. An adaptive system controls the intensity
of disturbance based on the performance improvement during
generations. A combination of modified Breeder GA mutation
scheme and a random mutation scheme can help DE to avoid
stagnation and/or premature convergence [27].
C. Selection Scheme and Population Size Adaptation
Large population size in DE algorithm causes high computational cost and adds more exploration ability to the population.

The small population size in MDE algorithm reduces the
number of function evaluations (per generation) with the cost
of less exploration capability and a higher risk of premature
convergence [3].
A population size adaptation method is proposed in [28]
which measures the Euclidean distance between individuals
and finds out if the population diversity is poor and/or it
moves toward stagnation. Depending on the search situation,
it generates new individuals. A population size reduction
method for cDE is proposed in [29], where the population
size gradually reduces during the evolution. Cumu-DE is
an adaptive DE and the effective population size is adapted
automatically using mechanism based on a probabilistic model
[30]. The term effective refers to the effective part of the
population where its size shrinks as the algorithm has more
successful trials. Gradual reduction of the population size is
another approach that has demonstrated higher robustness and
efficiency compared to generic DE [31].
OBL has Type-I and Type-II schemes [11], [12]. The
Type-I scheme has enhanced the performance of micro-ODE
for image thresholding [32]. This approach showed a better
performance compared to the MDE algorithm.
Small-size cooperative sub-populations are capable of finding sub-components of the original problem concurrently [33].
Combination of sub-components through their cooperation
constructs a complete solution for the problem [33]. A MDE
version of this method is proposed to evolve an indirect
representation of the bin packing problem [34]. The idea of
self-adaptive population size is carried out to test absolute
and relative encoding methods for DE [35]. The reported
simulation results on 20 benchmark problems denote the selfadaptive population size with relative encoding outperforms
the absolute encoding method and the DE algorithm [35].
III. D IFFERENTIAL E VOLUTION
In general, during a black-box optimization process, an
optimizer does not have a priori knowledge about the problem
landscape. Therefore, optimizers normally start with randomly
generated candidate solutions and then they try to get intelligence about the problem landscape during the optimization
procedure. The DE algorithm, similar to other populationbased algorithms, uses random initial vectors with uniform
distribution at the beginning, called initial population. Through
a number of generations, it tries to improve the initial candidate individuals toward an optimal solution. The population
P = {X1 , ..., XNP } has NP vectors in generation g, where Xi
is a D-dimensional vector defined as Xi = (xi,1 , ..., xi,D ). The
classic version of DE algorithm is consisted of the following
three major evolutionary operations: mutation, crossover, and
selection.
Mutation: This step selects three vectors randomly from the
population such that i1 6= i2 6= i3 6= i, where i ∈ {1, ..., NP }
s.t. NP ≥ 4 for each vector Xi . The mutant vector is calculated
as
(1)
Vi = Xi1 + F (Xi2 − Xi3 ),

where the mutation factor F ∈ (0.1, 1.5) is a real constant
number that controls the amplification of the added differential
variation of (Xi2 − Xi3 ). The exploration of DE increases by
selecting higher values for F .
Crossover: The crossover operation increases diversity of
the population by shuffling the mutant and parent vectors as
follows

Vi,d , randd (0, 1) ≤ Cr or drand = d
Ui,d =
,
(2)
xi,d , otherwise
where d = [1, ..., D], Cr ∈ [0, 1] is the crossover rate control
parameter, and rand(a, b) generates a random number in the
interval [a, b] with a uniform distribution. Therefore, the trial
vector Ui ∀i ∈ {1, ..., NP } can be generated as
Ui = (Ui,1 , ..., Ui,D ).

(3)

Selection: The Ui and Xi vectors are evaluated and compared
with respect to their fitness values; The one with better fitness
is selected for the next generations.

Fig. 1: Type-I versus Type-II opposition definition for a sample
landscape. An arbitrary point x with its corresponding objective
value f (x) is selected. The opposite of x using Type-I approach is
calculated using Eq.(4) and denoted by x̆I , where f (x̆I ) demonstrates
its corresponding value on the landscape, objective value. By having
f (x), its Type-II opposite f˘(xII ) is calculated using Eq.(5). The
corresponding values of f˘(xII ) in the variable space are denoted on
the X-axis as x1II and x2II .

IV. O PPOSITION -BASED L EARNING
The typical idea in population-based algorithms is to generate some random initial candidates and then try to guide them
toward an optimal solution [12]. By considering candidates
and corresponding opposite candidates simultaneously, the
search algorithm can have a more exploration coverage that
increases the chance of finding fitter candidates. This idea can
be supported by the probability theory, where for a specific
problem, the opposite of the current candidate solution has
a higher chance to be closer to the solution than a second
random number [36], [37]. This phenomenon can accelerate
convergence rate of the optimizer. The concept of OBL can
be categorized into Type-I and Type-II schemes [11], [12].
The Type-I OBL deals with the relationship among candidate solutions, based on their attributes, without considering
the actual objective landscape. Generally speaking, the Type-I
OBL computation is easy due to its linear definition in the variable space. Type-I OBL can be considered as an approximation
of the genuine intellection of opposite computing, which is the
Type-II OBL. Type-II opposition scheme requires a profound
understanding of the objective space. This concept is typically
difficult to be utilized in real-world applications, since for the
Type-I approach the variable space is already known, while in
the Type-II scenario a priori knowledge about the landscape is
required, which may not be available for black-box problems.
Figure 1 shows the Type-I and Type-II OBL schemes on
a one dimensional problem landscape. OBL was initially
defined with the Type-I trend with a min-max oppositional
computing scheme. This approach has received more attention
due to availability of variables’ boundaries. The other method
is centroid opposition computing which works based on the
centroid point of population and does not require variables’
boundaries. The min-max Type-I OBL is defined for a Ddimensional point xd ∈ [Xmin,d , Xmax,d ] as
x̆d = Xmin,d + Xmax,d − xd

(4)

where x̆d is the opposite of xd for d = [1, ..., D]. By
considering X = (x1 , ..., xD ) as a point in the D-dimensional
space and X̆ = (x̆1 , ..., x̆D ) as the opposite point of X, if
f (X) ≤ f (X̆), where f (·) is the fitness value, X̆ is considered
as the better solution for a maximization problem. In order
to have a general definition, if ψ ∈ Ψ in a D-dimensional
space and Φ : Ψ → Ψ is a one-to-one mapping function,
which defines an oppositional relationship between two unique
elements ψ1 and ψ2 of Ψ, the opposition concept for OBL
Type-I is ψ̆ = Φ(ψ). In addition, if Φ(ψ1 ) = ψ2 and
Φ(ψ2 ) = ψ1 , the oppositional relationship is symmetric in
this case. These approaches are discussed in [5] and [12].
For the point X in Type-II OBL we have f (X) ∈
[Ymin , Ymax ] [38], [5]. Therefore, the min-max-based opposition for Type-II OBL is defined as
f˘(X) = Ymin + Ymax − f (X).

(5)

In practice, since the landscape boundaries are unknown, the
boundaries Ymin and Ymax can be estimated using sampling
as ymin and ymax , respectively. The other approach can be
using the centroid of known limits. However, it is proved in
[12] that the centroid-based method can demonstrate better
estimation compared to min-max-based opposition.
V. P ROPOSED A LGORITHM
In the classical DE, the mutation scale factor is set to
a constant value and the mutation scheme is identical for
all individuals during generations. In the proposed OEMDE
algorithm, we enhance the exploration ability of MDE by
proposing a combination of three strategies: 1) vectorized randomization of mutation scale factor; 2) utilization of ensemble
mutation scheme; 3) population initialization and generation
jumping based on the opposition-based learning.
The OEMDE algorithm is presented in Algorithm 1, where
BVF is the best value so far, VTR is the value to reach, EVTR

Algorithm 1: Opposition-based Ensemble Micro-Differential Evolution
(OEMDE)
1: Procedure OEMDE
2: g = 0 // generation counter
//Initial Population Generation
3: for i = 1 → NP do
4:
for d = 1 → D do
)
− xmin
+ rand(0, 1) × (xmax
5:
Xi,d = xmin
d
d
d
6:
end for
7: end for
//Compute opposite of generated population
8: for i = 1 → NP do
9:
for d = 1 → D do
− Xi,d
+ xmin
10:
X̆i,d = xmax
d
d
11:
end for
12: end for
// End of compute opposite of generated population
13: S = {min{f (X̆) ∪ f (X)} : |S| = NP }
g
14: P = {Xi |f (Xi ) ∈ S} // P is the population
// End of Initial Population Generation
15: while (|BV F − V T R| > EV T R & N F C < N F CM ax ) do
16:
for i = 1 → NP do
// Mutation
17:
Select J (number of individuals in the chosen mutation scheme)
individuals from Pg where (i1 6= i2 6= i3 6= i)
18:
for d = 1 → D do
19:
Fi,d = rand(0.1, 1.5)
20:
Vi,d = fi (Fi,d , Xi1 ,d , ..., XiJ ,d )
21:
end for
// End of Mutation
// Crossover
22:
for d = 1 → D do
23:
if rand(0, 1) < Cr or drand = d then
24:
Ui,d = Vi,d
25:
else
26:
Ui,d = xi,d
27:
end if
28:
end for
// End of Crossover
// Selection
29:
if f (Ui ) ≤ f (Xi ) then
30:
X′i = Ui
31:
else
32:
X′i = Xi
33:
end if
// End of Selection
34:
end for
35:
Xi = X′i , ∀i ∈ {1, ..., NP }
//Compute opposite of population
36:
for i = 1 → NP do
37:
for d = 1 → D do
− Xi,d
+ xmin
38:
X̆i,d = xmax
d
d
39:
end for
40:
end for
// End of compute opposite of generated population
41:
S = {min{f (X̌) ∪ f (X)} : |S| = NP }
42:
g =g+1
43:
Pg = {Xi |f (Xi ) ∈ S} // P is the population
44: end while

is error value to reach, NFC is number of function calls, and
N F CMax is the maximum number of function calls.

Mutation Scheme

Equation

DE/rand/1
DE/best/1
DE/target-to-best/1
DE/rand/2
DE/best/2

Vi = Xi1 + F (Xi2 − Xi3 )
Vi = Xbest + F (Xi1 − Xi2 )
Vi = Xi + F (Xbest − Xi ) + F (Xi1 − Xi2 )
Vi = Xi1 + F (Xi2 − Xi3 ) + F (Xi4 − Xi5 )
Vi = Xbest + F (Xi1 − Xi2 ) + F (Xi3 − Xi4 )

where Fi,d = rand(0.1, 1.5) [3].
B. Ensemble Mutation Scheme
The OEMDE algorithm randomly assigns a mutation
scheme to each individual i of the population from a pool
of mutation schemes, Table I. The mutation scheme is a
function of mutation scale factor and J selected parents for
each individual such as
Vi,d = fi (Fi,d , Xi1 ,d , ..., XiJ ,d )

(7)

This function adds diversity into the population by using
vectorized random mutation scale factor as well as using a
random mutation scheme for each individual in each generation. Random selection of mutation scheme from a uniform
distribution results in enhancing the diversity in the population
and therefore, more exploration capability of the DE algorithm. Diversity in mutation scheme selection is particularly
important for MDE algorithm, where reducing the population
size to a micro-level results in a loss of diversity in the
population. This is one of the main causes of premature
convergence and stagnation.
C. Opposition-based Learning
The OBL not only considers the current population, but also
gives a chance to the opposite individuals of the population
to cooperate in the evolution. We use OBL in population
initialization as well as for generation jumping similar to
ODE algorithm [5]. As Algorithm 1 shows, the opposite of
individual i at dimension d is computed as
X̆i,d = xmax
+ xmin
− Xi,d
d
d

(8)

where xmax
and xmin
are the maximum and minimum boundd
d
aries of dimension d, respectively. The objective function
values of the opposite population f (X̆) is computed and
NP individuals with minimum objective function values are
selected such as
S = {min{f (X̆) ∪ f (X)} : |S| = NP }

(9)

Pg = {Xi |f (Xi ) ∈ S},

(10)

and
g

A. Vectorized Random Mutation Factor

where P is the selected population for generation g.

The mutation scale factor proposed in [3] is generated in
a vectorized random scheme such that it is a different value
for each dimension of an individual. Therefore, the mutation
factor can be defined for each individual i as
Fi = (Fi,1 , ..., Fi,D ), ∀i ∈ 1, ..., NP ,

TABLE I: Pool of mutation schemes.

(6)

VI. E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS
In this section, we discuss performance of the proposed
algorithm versus the PAjDE [28], µJADE [24], ODE [5],
ensemble micro differential evolution (EMDE) [4], and EMDE
with opposition in initialization (OIEMDE).

0.8

3
2
1
0
0

1

2

3

4
NFC

5

6

7

8
1e4

0.6

1.2 1e8
1.0
0.8
0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.0
0

1

2

(a) f1 .

3

4
NFC

5

6

7

8
1e4

0.0
0

5 1e4

OEMDE
EMDE
OIEMDE
PAjDE
uJADE
ODE

OEMDE
EMDE
OIEMDE
PAjDE
uJADE
ODE

4

Error

4

OEMDE
EMDE
OIEMDE
PAjDE
uJADE
ODE

1.0

Error

5
Error

1.2 1e8

OEMDE
EMDE
OIEMDE
PAjDE
uJADE
ODE

6

Error

7 1e4

3
2
1

1

2

(b) f6 .

3

4
NFC

5

6

7

0
0

8
1e4

1

2

(c) f15 .

3

4
NFC

5

6

7

8
1e4

(d) f21 .

Fig. 2: Error versus number of function calls (NFC) for NP = 6 and D=30.

2.0

4

1.5

3
2

1.0

0.0
0.0

0.5

1.0

NFC

1.5

2.0

2.5
1e6

OEMDE
EMDE
OIEMDE
PAjDE
uJADE
ODE

4
3
2

3.0 1e6

0
0.0

0.5

(a) f1 .

1.0

NFC

1.5

2.0

2.5
1e6

(b) f6 .

0
0.0

OEMDE
EMDE
OIEMDE
PAjDE
uJADE
ODE

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0

1

1

0.5

5 1e13

Error

2.5

OEMDE
EMDE
OIEMDE
PAjDE
uJADE
ODE

5

Error

3.0

Error

6 1e9

OEMDE
EMDE
OIEMDE
PAjDE
uJADE
ODE

Error

3.5 1e6

0.5
0.5

1.0

NFC

1.5

2.0

2.5
1e6

(c) f15 .

0.0
0.0

0.5

1.0

NFC

1.5

2.0

2.5
1e6

(d) f21 .

Fig. 3: Error versus number of function calls (NFC) for NP = 6 and D=1000.

TABLE II: Summary of statistical tests of OEMDE vs. EMDE,
OIEMDE, PAjDE, µJADE, and ODE for NP = 6 and dimensions
D = {10, 30, 50, 100, 500, 1000}.
D
30
50
100
200
500
1000

+
14
7
18
21
21
21

EMDE
=
8
17
5
2
2
2

2
0
1
1
1
1

OIEMDE
+
=
9
12
12
11
13
7
20
2
18
6
18
6

3
1
4
2
0
0

+
19
17
21
23
22
22

PAjDE
=
4
5
2
1
2
2

1
2
1
0
0
0

+
18
17
1
22
22
2

µJADE
=
4
6
22
2
2
22

2
1
1
0
0
0

+
6
12
7
6
7
7

ODE
=
17
1
6
6
8
9
10
8
7
10
10
7

A. Benchmark Problems
We use the black-box optimization benchmarking (CECBBOB-2015) functions given at CEC-2015 [39]. It has 24
noise-free functions divided into five classes which are separable functions (f1 − f5 ), functions with low or moderate
conditioning (f6 − f9 ), functions with high conditioning and
uni-modal (f10 − f14 ), multi-modal functions with adequate
global structure (f15 − f19 ), and multi-modal functions with
weak global structure (f20 − f24 ).
B. Setting
Experiments are conducted for six different dimensions
D ∈ {30, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000}, crossover rate is set to
Cr = 0.9, maximum number of function calls is N F Cmax =
5000D, and error-value-to-reach is set to EV T R = 10−8 .
The mutation scheme pool is given as in Table I. Since one of
the mutation schemes has 5 parents/individuals, the minimum
population size is set to NP = 6 [2]. The experiments are
conducted 30 independent times. Parameters setting of the
algorithms compared with the OEMDE are set based on the

best setting reported in their corresponding papers. Settings of
OEIMDE is similar to OEMDE.
C. Performance Analysis
The performance results of the OEMDE versus EMDE,
OIEMDE, PAjDE, µJADE, and ODE with NP = 6 for D ∈
{30, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000} are presented in Table II. The
Wilcoxon statistical test is performed to find significant results.
Due to space limitations, the error and standard deviation
values per objective function for all dimensions except 30 are
presented in Tables IV-VII.
Results in Table II show that as the problem dimensionality
increases OEMDE achieves more success rates compared
to EMDE, OIEMDE, and PAjDE. We can observe similar
success versus µJADE and ODE, but with more neutral rates,
particularly for D = 1000. For this dimension, OEMDE and
ODE have similar performance, with 7 neutral significance
and 7 positive significance for ODE and OEMDE. This is
while OEMDE has much better performance comparing to
PAjDE, with 22 positive significance. Error value of algorithms
in Table II is plotted versus number of function calls in
Figures 2 and 3 for D ∈ {30, 1000} and some objective
functions f1 , f6 , f15 , f21 (due to lack of space). The plots
clearly show that the OEMDE converges to a better candidate
solution much faster than the other methods. For example
for D = 30 and f1 the µJADE and PAjDE algorithms
are trying to decrease the error value while the ODE and
OEMDE already have arrived to a much lower error value. As
problem dimensionality increases, similar convergence pattern
is observable. For example, Figure 3 for f6 , f15 , and f21 ,

TABLE III: Error and standard deviation of the proposed OEMDE algorithm versus state of the art. The W represents the Wilcoxon statistical test results
compared to OEMDE. The signs ‘+’ and ‘−’ show significance of the OEMDE over the competitive algorithm and vice-versa, respectively; ‘=’ shows neither
is significant. D=50 and NP = 6.
F
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

OEMDE
Error
6.00e+02±1.48e+03
5.10e+07±5.90e+07
1.20e+06±1.78e+06
6.39e+05±1.21e+06
4.84e+02±1.62e+02
3.69e+06±4.39e+06
1.06e+04±2.29e+04
2.56e+07±8.21e+07
8.56e+08±2.78e+09
4.98e+08±5.36e+08
1.57e+06±3.65e+06
6.11e+11±1.89e+12
2.54e+03±1.44e+03
6.72e+03±1.28e+04
6.79e+05±1.60e+06
3.16e+02±5.34e+02
6.85e+04±7.70e+04
1.61e+05±1.32e+05
2.64e+03±7.95e+03
1.23e+06±4.49e+06
4.29e+02±1.99e+02
1.21e+02±1.65e+01
6.00e+02±1.15e+03
4.24e+06±1.28e+07

EMDE
Error
1.09e+04±3.26e+03
2.91e+08±1.61e+08
3.61e+06±7.64e+06
1.39e+06±4.87e+05
6.45e+02±2.20e+02
4.07e+06±5.83e+06
6.99e+04±1.62e+04
1.23e+09±4.60e+08
8.11e+08±4.26e+08
1.40e+08±6.23e+07
1.09e+05±4.97e+04
4.81e+11±8.43e+11
1.96e+04±2.74e+03
3.88e+03±1.45e+03
2.81e+05±2.37e+05
1.61e+03±5.49e+02
1.44e+05±7.71e+04
2.45e+05±1.09e+05
3.90e+04±2.01e+04
1.53e+07±4.81e+06
8.62e+03±2.52e+03
7.12e+03±2.67e+03
7.60e+03±1.84e+03
7.09e+07±2.10e+07

W
+
+
=
+
+
=
+
+
=
−
=
=
+
=
=
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

OIEMDE
Error
7.11e+03±2.41e+03
1.71e+08±7.35e+07
1.03e+06±1.72e+06
8.70e+05±4.49e+05
4.63e+02±1.62e+02
2.77e+06±3.05e+06
4.58e+04±1.54e+04
5.13e+08±3.29e+08
2.77e+08±1.68e+08
6.75e+07±3.59e+07
1.59e+05±1.05e+05
1.17e+12±3.86e+12
1.54e+04±2.64e+03
2.74e+03±1.31e+03
1.36e+05±4.02e+04
8.28e+02±3.97e+02
1.07e+05±5.59e+04
1.78e+05±1.09e+05
1.19e+04±8.83e+03
3.77e+06±0.00e+00
4.39e+03±1.68e+03
3.93e+03±1.80e+03
4.55e+03±2.65e+03
3.84e+07±1.75e+07

W
+
+
=
=
=
=
+
+
=
−
=
=
+
=
=
+
=
=
+
=
+
+
+
+

PAjDE
Error
2.27e+04±7.50e+03
4.38e+08±2.41e+08
4.65e+07±9.40e+07
2.88e+06±1.04e+06
5.03e+02±3.30e+02
4.84e+05±6.61e+05
1.42e+05±5.07e+04
6.79e+09±3.61e+09
2.87e+09±1.94e+09
1.83e+08±9.13e+07
2.74e+05±1.00e+05
2.01e+13±8.50e+13
2.86e+04±3.82e+03
9.42e+03±6.73e+03
6.91e+05±8.70e+05
3.08e+03±1.38e+03
5.33e+05±2.48e+05
5.04e+05±1.88e+05
1.46e+05±1.16e+05
3.36e+07±1.35e+07
1.52e+04±5.93e+03
1.68e+04±5.91e+03
1.94e+04±7.17e+03
1.93e+08±5.85e+07

W
+
+
+
+
=
−
+
+
+
−
=
=
+
=
=
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

µJADE
Error
3.48e+04±6.37e+03
4.18e+08±1.31e+08
1.81e+06±3.56e+06
3.81e+06±6.00e+05
1.18e+02±7.09e+01
4.05e+06±5.50e+06
2.45e+05±4.42e+04
8.70e+09±3.75e+09
9.44e+09±1.90e+09
3.63e+08±9.71e+07
1.34e+05±2.07e+04
6.39e+14±1.64e+15
3.82e+04±4.07e+03
1.42e+04±4.03e+03
1.21e+06±8.57e+05
5.11e+03±1.14e+03
9.86e+05±2.09e+05
1.16e+06±3.25e+05
4.42e+05±1.24e+05
4.73e+07±1.15e+07
2.65e+04±5.84e+03
2.45e+04±4.86e+03
2.77e+04±4.73e+03
2.57e+08±6.42e+07

W
+
+
=
+
−
=
+
+
+
=
=
=
+
+
=
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

ODE
Error
3.26e+02±5.97e+02
1.95e+07±6.83e+06
3.56e+07±7.77e+07
9.23e+05±2.13e+06
1.20e+03±3.08e+02
3.35e+07±6.65e+07
3.60e+04±1.23e+05
2.28e+05±4.15e+04
1.29e+04±5.62e+04
3.16e+08±1.25e+09
5.30e+05±9.95e+05
2.66e+15±7.40e+15
3.03e+03±1.77e+02
3.52e+01±9.10e+01
2.23e+06±5.90e+06
2.08e+02±1.65e+01
4.28e+05±4.79e+05
4.86e+05±5.89e+05
9.62e+03±4.17e+04
1.18e+07±4.57e+07
3.87e+02±1.76e+00
1.48e+02±1.06e+02
2.18e+02±3.09e+00
7.74e+02±7.08e+01

W
=
−
+
+
+
+
+
−
−
=
−
+
+
−
+
=
+
+
+
+
=
=
=
−

TABLE IV: Error and standard deviation of the proposed OEMDE algorithm versus state of the art. The W represents the Wilcoxon statistical test results
compared to OEMDE. The signs ‘+’ and ‘−’ show significance of the OEMDE over the competitive algorithm and vice-versa, respectively; ‘=’ shows neither
is significant. D=100 and NP = 6.
F
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

OEMDE
Error
1.49e+03±4.07e+03
6.24e+07±9.33e+07
1.73e+07±2.54e+07
1.22e+06±2.30e+06
1.56e+03±4.10e+02
1.10e+07±1.24e+07
5.82e+04±1.61e+05
1.16e+09±3.41e+09
2.85e+07±8.54e+07
2.10e+08±5.82e+08
1.51e+06±3.35e+06
7.10e+13±2.64e+14
1.15e+04±1.86e+04
1.43e+04±3.37e+04
1.66e+06±3.32e+06
2.11e+02±1.13e+01
1.73e+05±2.25e+05
2.70e+05±3.24e+05
6.85e+03±2.94e+04
1.14e+07±2.83e+07
4.51e+02±2.37e+02
1.22e+02±2.12e+00
1.90e+03±5.47e+03
7.36e+06±3.21e+07

EMDE
Error
3.24e+04±5.13e+03
1.06e+09±3.88e+08
2.07e+07±2.04e+07
5.08e+06±1.17e+06
1.96e+03±5.42e+02
3.11e+07±1.07e+07
2.25e+05±6.13e+04
9.63e+09±2.55e+09
7.35e+09±2.53e+09
5.39e+08±1.61e+08
3.30e+05±1.65e+05
3.98e+14±1.02e+15
3.36e+04±2.68e+03
1.30e+04±3.81e+03
1.50e+06±6.33e+05
2.64e+03±4.55e+02
5.14e+05±1.48e+05
6.01e+05±2.31e+05
1.96e+05±7.70e+04
4.55e+07±9.60e+06
2.38e+04±5.22e+03
2.16e+04±3.28e+03
2.32e+04±6.00e+03
2.31e+08±5.53e+07

W
+
+
=
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
−
=
=
=
=
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

OIEMDE
Error
2.16e+04±5.56e+03
7.52e+08±3.39e+08
7.93e+06±8.05e+06
3.41e+06±1.13e+06
1.59e+03±4.09e+02
2.04e+07±1.04e+07
1.56e+05±5.12e+04
6.09e+09±3.89e+09
3.66e+09±2.98e+09
3.80e+08±1.47e+08
3.17e+05±1.69e+05
4.64e+13±7.43e+13
2.61e+04±3.97e+03
7.13e+03±3.90e+03
7.63e+05±4.99e+05
1.66e+03±5.55e+02
3.85e+05±1.95e+05
4.54e+05±3.55e+05
8.20e+04±5.07e+04
2.46e+07±9.70e+06
1.38e+04±4.12e+03
1.16e+04±3.31e+03
1.46e+04±5.36e+03
1.27e+08±3.78e+07

W
+
+
−
=
=
+
+
+
+
=
−
=
=
−
−
+
+
=
+
=
+
+
+
+

PAjDE
Error
7.42e+04±1.09e+04
1.86e+09±6.06e+08
7.39e+08±1.25e+09
1.10e+07±2.79e+06
1.55e+03±6.28e+02
2.25e+07±1.51e+07
4.53e+05±6.93e+04
5.79e+10±1.69e+10
3.95e+10±9.54e+09
8.18e+08±2.53e+08
6.38e+05±2.33e+05
8.75e+14±1.84e+15
5.30e+04±5.23e+03
2.77e+04±1.05e+04
3.96e+06±3.14e+06
6.07e+03±1.03e+03
1.88e+06±4.56e+05
2.40e+06±8.46e+05
8.91e+05±3.80e+05
1.09e+08±2.14e+07
6.61e+04±1.37e+04
6.41e+04±1.28e+04
6.51e+04±1.35e+04
6.05e+08±8.12e+07

W
+
+
+
+
=
+
+
+
+
+
−
+
+
=
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

µJADE
Error
1.25e+05±1.57e+04
1.92e+09±5.09e+08
8.09e+07±9.90e+07
1.59e+07±1.86e+06
7.63e+02±3.64e+02
3.74e+07±1.93e+07
6.70e+05±9.16e+04
1.07e+11±1.54e+10
1.16e+11±1.84e+10
1.37e+09±2.94e+08
2.74e+05±3.09e+04
2.09e+17±4.10e+17
6.48e+04±4.26e+03
4.43e+04±6.97e+03
2.28e+07±1.47e+07
9.61e+03±1.16e+03
3.27e+06±9.89e+05
3.59e+06±9.43e+05
2.51e+06±5.46e+05
1.63e+08±1.86e+07
9.72e+04±1.52e+04
9.47e+04±1.37e+04
1.01e+05±1.47e+04
9.74e+08±9.47e+07

W
+
+
+
+
−
+
+
+
+
+
=
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

ODE
Error
2.07e+03±6.64e+03
7.55e+08±3.16e+09
2.92e+08±4.56e+08
1.80e+06±7.65e+06
3.07e+03±1.23e+03
4.20e+07±7.09e+07
4.53e+03±7.79e+03
9.10e+06±2.55e+07
2.86e+06±1.25e+07
4.69e+07±5.60e+07
1.52e+06±3.29e+06
5.56e+16±1.71e+17
7.33e+03±9.10e+03
1.48e+02±1.43e+02
7.64e+07±2.86e+08
2.80e+02±3.16e+02
1.14e+06±1.29e+06
3.61e+05±8.52e+05
4.34e+01±3.71e+00
2.49e+05±7.58e+05
3.96e+02±7.11e+00
1.27e+02±5.11e-01
2.21e+02±1.70e+01
9.13e+06±3.94e+07

W
=
+
+
=
+
=
−
−
−
−
=
+
−
−
+
=
+
=
−
−
=
=
−
+

TABLE V: Error and standard deviation of the proposed OEMDE algorithm versus state of the art. The W represents the Wilcoxon statistical test results
compared to OEMDE. The signs ‘+’ and ‘−’ show significance of the OEMDE over the competitive algorithm and vice-versa, respectively; ‘=’ shows neither
is significant. D=200 and NP = 6.
F

OEMDE
Error

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

2.14e+03±4.52e+03
6.95e+08±1.62e+09
4.05e+07±8.58e+07
1.85e+06±5.42e+06
4.13e+03±1.30e+03
3.32e+07±4.67e+07
5.36e+04±1.24e+05
1.33e+09±5.62e+09
1.27e+08±4.31e+08
4.90e+07±8.11e+07
2.07e+06±4.05e+06
1.02e+16±4.02e+16
9.97e+03±1.27e+04
1.83e+04±6.72e+04
2.30e+06±5.15e+06
2.79e+02±4.59e+02
6.01e+05±6.04e+05
5.75e+05±8.37e+05
4.78e+01±7.93e-01
7.51e+06±1.70e+07
4.22e+02±1.13e+02
3.48e+02±9.32e+02
9.87e+02±3.32e+03
1.62e+06±5.05e+06

EMDE
Error
8.83e+04±1.02e+04
3.73e+09±9.10e+08
1.11e+08±7.75e+07
1.23e+07±2.18e+06
5.60e+03±8.84e+02
1.28e+08±2.68e+07
6.49e+05±1.17e+05
1.15e+11±2.73e+10
1.04e+11±2.67e+10
1.88e+09±2.26e+08
5.19e+05±2.45e+05
2.35e+16±4.91e+16
5.79e+04±3.87e+03
3.65e+04±7.22e+03
9.71e+06±8.18e+06
3.37e+03±3.99e+02
1.31e+06±3.00e+05
1.88e+06±8.97e+05
1.29e+06±2.99e+05
1.25e+08±1.53e+07
6.08e+04±6.89e+03
6.12e+04±5.74e+03
6.15e+04±7.60e+03
5.96e+08±8.59e+07

W
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
−
=
+
=
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

OIEMDE
Error
5.58e+04±1.97e+04
2.50e+09±1.04e+09
2.05e+08±2.89e+08
9.50e+06±2.60e+06
4.86e+03±5.89e+02
9.17e+07±2.03e+07
3.80e+05±7.66e+04
4.79e+10±3.08e+10
4.78e+10±2.51e+10
1.15e+09±3.51e+08
3.47e+05±1.96e+05
2.50e+15±4.01e+15
4.58e+04±6.86e+03
1.69e+04±8.08e+03
5.02e+06±3.19e+06
1.77e+03±7.64e+02
1.07e+06±3.25e+05
1.29e+06±5.73e+05
6.48e+05±4.02e+05
8.46e+07±2.64e+07
3.87e+04±1.23e+04
4.03e+04±1.13e+04
3.96e+04±1.22e+04
3.18e+08±8.75e+07

W
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
−
−
+
=
=
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

PAjDE
Error
2.45e+05±3.56e+04
6.38e+09±1.81e+09
5.52e+09±4.49e+09
3.36e+07±4.59e+06
5.20e+03±1.40e+03
1.59e+08±3.24e+07
1.40e+06±1.88e+05
8.02e+11±1.56e+11
6.73e+11±1.87e+11
3.26e+09±6.43e+08
1.28e+06±2.76e+05
9.64e+17±2.86e+18
9.15e+04±5.68e+03
9.63e+04±3.00e+04
4.93e+07±2.63e+07
9.14e+03±1.09e+03
5.55e+06±9.97e+05
6.63e+06±2.50e+06
7.93e+06±2.53e+06
3.21e+08±4.37e+07
1.86e+05±1.86e+04
1.86e+05±2.37e+04
1.79e+05±1.90e+04
1.84e+09±1.98e+08

W
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
=
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

µJADE
Error
3.36e+05±2.62e+04
8.92e+09±1.76e+09
2.61e+09±4.43e+09
4.62e+07±2.79e+06
4.82e+03±9.33e+02
2.63e+08±5.60e+07
1.87e+06±1.78e+05
1.29e+12±1.55e+11
1.43e+12±2.33e+11
4.79e+09±6.59e+08
6.00e+05±4.81e+04
2.77e+20±4.68e+20
1.06e+05±3.93e+03
1.37e+05±1.84e+04
5.45e+08±4.06e+08
1.35e+04±7.57e+02
1.06e+07±4.99e+06
2.34e+07±1.16e+07
1.73e+07±1.52e+06
4.58e+08±4.37e+07
2.78e+05±2.39e+04
2.80e+05±1.81e+04
2.81e+05±1.72e+04
2.79e+09±2.08e+08

W
+
+
+
+
=
+
+
+
+
+
=
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

ODE
Error
9.39e+02±2.90e+01
5.74e+08±2.13e+09
2.32e+09±6.08e+09
2.76e+06±9.84e+06
5.08e+03±2.96e+03
6.22e+07±2.32e+08
9.47e+03±3.29e+03
1.77e+07±3.83e+07
3.84e+06±1.67e+07
7.98e+08±3.31e+09
1.06e+06±1.37e+06
6.01e+20±1.67e+21
6.47e+03±2.87e+02
1.30e+02±3.99e+01
7.06e+07±1.92e+08
2.02e+02±9.25e+00
3.93e+04±1.71e+05
5.42e+06±1.89e+07
1.13e+02±3.05e+02
2.51e+07±1.07e+08
3.99e+02±2.44e+01
1.66e+02±1.69e+02
2.15e+02±6.86e-01
3.02e+03±1.70e+02

W
−
=
+
=
=
=
−
−
−
+
=
−
=
−
+
=
−
+
+
+
=
=
=
−

TABLE VI: Error and standard deviation of the proposed OEMDE algorithm versus state of the art.The W represents the Wilcoxon statistical test results
compared to OEMDE. The signs ‘+’ and ‘−’ show significance of the OEMDE over the competitive algorithm and vice-versa, respectively; ‘=’ shows neither
is significant. D=500 and NP = 6.
F
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

OEMDE
Error
3.00e+03±2.05e+03
1.37e+09±4.84e+09
4.13e+08±1.04e+09
4.75e+05±8.22e+05
1.13e+04±4.37e+03
7.74e+07±1.58e+08
2.40e+04±5.46e+03
2.05e+11±8.87e+11
2.45e+11±1.07e+12
2.13e+09±6.30e+09
1.88e+06±4.11e+06
8.45e+17±2.01e+18
1.32e+04±1.19e+04
3.62e+04±1.08e+05
1.97e+07±5.20e+07
6.97e+02±2.08e+03
9.43e+05±1.74e+06
9.22e+06±2.85e+07
1.41e+04±5.44e+04
5.10e+07±1.43e+08
3.95e+02±1.20e+01
1.25e+02±1.16e+00
1.23e+32±2.48e+31
7.78e+06±3.11e+07

EMDE
Error
2.78e+05±2.48e+04
1.45e+10±2.05e+09
1.15e+09±9.36e+08
4.15e+07±5.07e+06
1.93e+04±9.43e+02
4.16e+08±5.45e+07
2.17e+06±2.76e+05
2.50e+12±4.92e+11
2.47e+12±4.78e+11
9.57e+09±1.92e+09
1.09e+06±6.59e+05
2.62e+18±3.43e+18
9.99e+04±5.15e+03
1.11e+05±1.75e+04
1.30e+08±7.17e+07
4.01e+03±4.44e+02
4.04e+06±6.34e+05
5.88e+06±2.02e+06
1.29e+07±2.38e+06
3.90e+08±3.64e+07
1.91e+05±1.61e+04
1.95e+05±1.94e+04
8.99e+31±7.47e+30
1.94e+09±2.20e+08

W
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
=
+
+
+
+
+
+
=
+
+
+
+
−
+

OIEMDE
Error
1.79e+05±4.56e+04
7.97e+09±2.13e+09
5.17e+08±4.22e+08
3.19e+07±7.90e+06
1.79e+04±1.43e+03
3.49e+08±5.07e+07
1.43e+06±2.62e+05
1.34e+12±5.42e+11
1.05e+12±4.62e+11
6.53e+09±1.52e+09
1.07e+06±5.83e+05
5.76e+17±1.13e+18
8.64e+04±1.08e+04
5.92e+04±2.14e+04
5.54e+07±4.19e+07
2.82e+03±6.66e+02
2.78e+06±7.74e+05
3.86e+06±1.91e+06
5.23e+06±2.15e+06
2.42e+08±6.46e+07
1.30e+05±3.83e+04
1.28e+05±4.04e+04
1.10e+32±3.63e+31
1.19e+09±2.81e+08

W
+
+
=
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
=
=
+
=
+
+
+
=
+
+
+
+
=
+

PAjDE
Error
8.43e+05±6.78e+04
3.46e+10±4.15e+09
1.13e+11±9.00e+10
1.25e+08±1.41e+07
2.32e+04±2.00e+03
8.72e+08±8.62e+07
5.26e+06±5.40e+05
2.08e+13±1.73e+12
2.02e+13±2.57e+12
1.96e+10±3.50e+09
2.32e+06±4.78e+05
5.53e+21±6.38e+21
1.75e+05±9.05e+03
3.13e+05±6.32e+04
1.87e+09±1.25e+09
1.32e+04±9.29e+02
1.99e+07±2.73e+06
5.72e+07±2.79e+07
1.03e+08±1.50e+07
1.20e+09±8.96e+07
6.80e+05±5.04e+04
6.64e+05±4.79e+04
5.40e+32±3.33e+31
6.47e+09±4.48e+08

W
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
=
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
=
+

µJADE
Error
1.00e+06±3.61e+04
4.14e+10±3.93e+09
5.99e+10±3.00e+10
1.51e+08±1.37e+07
2.59e+04±1.74e+03
1.17e+09±1.39e+08
6.62e+06±4.92e+05
2.66e+13±1.63e+12
3.16e+13±3.18e+12
2.38e+10±1.93e+09
1.45e+06±1.25e+05
1.21e+24±2.97e+24
1.90e+05±5.61e+03
4.44e+05±4.33e+04
2.18e+10±2.12e+10
1.59e+04±5.44e+02
2.20e+08±2.19e+08
7.90e+08±4.19e+08
1.57e+08±1.98e+07
1.48e+09±7.82e+07
8.16e+05±4.01e+04
8.26e+05±4.32e+04
8.40e+32±2.67e+31
8.11e+09±4.25e+08

ODE
Error

W
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
=
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
=
+

2.67e+03±1.04e+03
1.67e+08±9.53e+06
3.96e+11±9.21e+11
2.57e+07±7.68e+07
1.08e+04±5.32e+03
1.47e+08±6.00e+08
2.23e+04±4.62e+03
9.03e+07±1.16e+08
6.24e+04±2.56e+05
1.74e+08±1.03e+07
1.12e+06±1.53e+06
2.37e+13±1.03e+14
1.03e+04±2.11e+02
5.86e+03±2.42e+04
3.27e+04±5.40e+04
1.99e+02±5.62e+00
1.15e+07±3.48e+07
4.46e+07±1.75e+08
1.28e+03±5.02e+03
4.72e+05±1.76e+05
3.94e+02±2.35e-01
1.26e+02±1.07e-01
1.78e+32±5.03e+31
7.77e+03±2.36e+02

W
=
−
+
+
=
+
=
−
−
−
=
−
=
−
−
=
+
+
−
−
=
+
+
−

TABLE VII: Error and standard deviation of the proposed OEMDE algorithm versus state of the art. The W represents the Wilcoxon statistical test results
compared to OEMDE. The signs ‘+’ and ‘−’ show significance of the OEMDE over the competitive algorithm and vice-versa, respectively; ‘=’ shows neither
is significant. D=1000 and NP = 6.
F
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

OEMDE
Error
5.77e+04±1.15e+05
2.09e+09±6.37e+09
1.75e+09±5.55e+09
1.44e+07±3.78e+07
1.93e+04±5.50e+03
3.30e+07±2.40e+07
6.07e+04±1.51e+04
1.04e+11±6.05e+11
3.50e+09±9.84e+09
3.07e+08±1.20e+08
2.06e+06±1.57e+06
2.42e+10±2.51e+10
1.44e+04±2.30e+02
2.45e+04±1.02e+05
1.26e+07±2.17e+07
1.99e+02±3.45e+00
2.49e+06±3.53e+06
3.83e+06±5.09e+06
3.37e+07±8.25e+07
1.27e+08±3.85e+08
3.94e+02±2.17e-01
1.26e+02±1.24e-01
1.36e+33±5.50e+32
1.56e+04±1.58e+02

EMDE
Error
6.09e+05±5.09e+04
3.40e+10±3.38e+09
3.50e+09±2.88e+09
9.06e+07±7.43e+06
4.28e+04±1.95e+03
9.67e+08±8.63e+07
4.84e+06±4.41e+05
2.22e+13±3.16e+12
2.45e+13±3.25e+12
2.62e+10±3.25e+09
2.61e+06±1.12e+06
1.74e+20±4.48e+20
1.52e+05±6.94e+03
2.04e+05±2.50e+04
8.11e+08±3.99e+08
4.25e+03±4.51e+02
8.95e+06±2.16e+06
1.95e+07±1.06e+07
5.81e+07±7.05e+06
8.50e+08±7.09e+07
4.00e+05±4.41e+04
4.08e+05±3.74e+04
8.51e+32±2.49e+32
4.21e+09±4.13e+08

W
+
+
=
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
=
=
+
+
+
+
+
+
=
+
+
+
−
+

OIEMDE
Error
4.05e+05±7.57e+04
2.40e+10±6.66e+09
1.44e+09±1.05e+09
6.95e+07±1.78e+07
4.05e+04±2.90e+03
6.62e+08±1.26e+08
3.99e+06±1.22e+06
9.71e+12±3.96e+12
1.29e+13±4.73e+12
1.57e+10±3.70e+09
1.89e+06±1.18e+06
3.04e+19±7.94e+19
1.27e+05±1.15e+04
1.46e+05±6.31e+04
3.68e+08±1.72e+08
3.04e+03±7.43e+01
6.24e+06±1.86e+06
1.00e+07±2.01e+06
3.08e+07±1.11e+07
7.12e+08±1.39e+08
2.72e+05±6.62e+04
3.26e+05±7.25e+04
9.55e+32±3.83e+32
2.38e+09±2.34e+08

W
+
+
=
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
=
=
+
+
+
+
+
=
=
+
+
+
=
+

shows gradual exploration and exploitation of PAjDE and
µJADE algorithms. This is while the increased diversity in
OEMDE helps a faster convergence.
VII. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, an opposition-based ensemble version of
micro-differential evolution (OEMDE) algorithm using a pool
of mutation schemes is proposed. The OEMDE uses randomized mutation scale factor, such that a different mutation
scale factor is assigned to each dimension of each individual.
The OEMDE utilizes different mutation schemes for each
individual of population, rather than a fixed mutation scheme.
It enhances the diversity of population by giving a chance to
opposite vectors of the population and involving them during
the evolution. The objective is to increase the exploration
ability of micro-DE algorithm and to decrease the chance
of pre-mature convergence and stagnation by providing more
diversity in the generated mutant vectors. The OEMDE is
simple to implement and its performance is superior to the

PAjDE
Error
1.88e+06±1.76e+05
8.49e+10±9.38e+09
4.05e+11±1.64e+11
2.95e+08±1.69e+07
5.98e+04±3.16e+03
2.66e+09±2.78e+08
1.47e+07±1.00e+06
2.14e+14±2.11e+13
2.40e+14±3.37e+13
5.89e+10±8.86e+09
4.46e+06±9.30e+05
5.32e+23±5.91e+23
2.64e+05±4.38e+03
7.24e+05±6.29e+04
6.02e+10±4.01e+10
1.57e+04±1.54e+03
1.59e+08±5.73e+07
2.91e+08±6.02e+07
5.77e+08±5.71e+07
2.76e+09±1.67e+08
1.53e+06±1.27e+05
1.58e+06±1.25e+05
7.53e+33±3.60e+32
1.49e+10±8.46e+08

W
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
=
+

µJADE
Error
2.08e+06±5.80e+04
1.16e+11±1.03e+10
5.48e+11±1.92e+11
3.46e+08±1.94e+07
6.87e+04±4.16e+03
2.90e+09±1.37e+07
1.69e+07±5.80e+05
2.28e+14±1.59e+13
2.78e+14±1.57e+13
7.28e+10±4.33e+09
2.84e+06±2.21e+05
3.16e+26±3.56e+26
2.86e+05±1.50e+03
1.06e+06±1.16e+05
1.95e+11±1.52e+11
1.73e+04±1.10e+03
1.59e+09±8.57e+08
3.70e+09±1.18e+09
7.59e+08±5.60e+07
3.23e+09±1.32e+08
1.66e+06±6.69e+04
1.74e+06±5.30e+04
4.33e+33±4.70e+32
1.72e+10±2.72e+08

ODE
Error

W
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
=
+
+
+
=
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
=
+

9.75e+03±2.12e+04
1.21e+09±3.61e+09
5.72e+05±1.66e+06
4.11e+07±1.29e+08
2.52e+04±1.39e+04
8.28e+08±1.81e+09
7.82e+04±6.59e+04
5.13e+08±2.06e+08
5.91e+13±1.96e+14
1.96e+10±6.02e+10
3.58e+06±5.89e+06
1.58e+14±5.24e+14
1.49e+04±4.28e+01
4.50e+02±1.29e+02
4.71e+04±2.20e+04
5.83e+02±8.65e+02
1.64e+01±1.34e+00
4.98e+01±5.45e+00
4.35e+01±3.95e+00
8.43e+05±1.28e+05
3.99e+02±9.17e+00
1.27e+02±7.42e-02
1.74e+33±1.11e+32
1.58e+04±3.82e+02

W
−
=
+
=
=
+
=
+
+
+
=
+
+
−
−
=
−
−
−
−
=
=
=
=

classical micro-DE algorithm. Its performance is on a par
with ODE. However, OEMDE uses a smaller population size
and does not require the setting of mutation scale factor
and mutation scheme, which requires less trial and error for
parameter setting.
Diversity enhancement is an important factor in micro-DE.
Other possibilities to increase diversity needs to be studied
at different levels of algorithm for different population sizes
and problem dimensionalities. The proposed work can also be
extended to multi-objective and many-objective problems.
R EFERENCES
[1] H. Salehinejad and S. Talebi, “Dynamic fuzzy logic-ant colony systembased route selection system,” Applied Computational Intelligence and
Soft Computing, 2010.
[2] H. Salehinejad, S. Rahnamayan, and H. R. Tizhoosh, “Micro-differential
evolution: Diversity enhancement and a comparative study,” Applied Soft
Computing, vol. 52, pp. 812–833, 2017.
[3] H. Salehinejad, S. Rahnamayan, H. R. Tizhoosh, and S. Y. Chen,
“Micro-differential evolution with vectorized random mutation factor,”
in Evolutionary Computation (CEC), 2014 IEEE Congress on, pp. 2055–
2062, IEEE, 2014.

[4] H. Salehinejad, S. Rahnamayan, and H. R. Tizhoosh, “Exploration
enhancement in ensemble micro-differential evolution,” in Evolutionary
Computation (CEC), 2016 IEEE Congress on, pp. 63–70, IEEE, 2016.
[5] S. Rahnamayan, H. R. Tizhoosh, and M. M. Salama, “Opposition versus
randomness in soft computing techniques,” Applied Soft Computing,
vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 906–918, 2008.
[6] S. Rahnamayan, J. Jesuthasan, F. Bourennani, H. Salehinejad, and G. F.
Naterer, “Computing opposition by involving entire population,” in
Evolutionary Computation (CEC), 2014 IEEE Congress on, pp. 1800–
1807, IEEE, 2014.
[7] S. Rahnamayan, J. Jesuthasan, F. Bourennani, G. F. Naterer, and H. Salehinejad, “Centroid opposition-based differential evolution,” International
Journal of Applied Metaheuristic Computing (IJAMC), vol. 5, no. 4,
pp. 1–25, 2014.
[8] H. Salehinejad and S. Rahnamayan, “Effects of centralized population
initialization in differential evolution,” in Computational Intelligence
(SSCI), 2016 IEEE Symposium Series on, pp. 1–8, IEEE, 2016.
[9] H. Salehinejad, R. Zadeh, R. Liscano, and S. Rahnamayan, “3d localization in large-scale wireless sensor networks: A micro-differential
evolution approach,” in Personal, Indoor, and Mobile Radio Communication (PIMRC), 2014 IEEE 25th Annual International Symposium on,
pp. 1824–1828, IEEE, 2014.
[10] H. Salehinejad, Micro-differential evolution: diversity enhancement and
comparative study. PhD thesis, 2014.
[11] H. R. Tizhoosh, “Opposition-based learning: a new scheme for machine
intelligence,” in CIMCA, vol. 1, pp. 695–701, IEEE, 2005.
[12] H. Salehinejad, S. Rahnamayan, and H. R. Tizhoosh, “Type-ii
opposition-based differential evolution,” in Evolutionary Computation
(CEC), 2014 IEEE Congress on, pp. 1768–1775, IEEE, 2014.
[13] V. Feoktistov, Differential evolution. Springer, 2006.
[14] R. Gämperle, S. D. Müller, and P. Koumoutsakos, “A parameter study
for differential evolution,” Advances in intelligent systems, fuzzy systems,
evolutionary computation, vol. 10, pp. 293–298, 2002.
[15] A. Salman, A. P. Engelbrecht, and M. G. Omran, “Empirical analysis
of self-adaptive differential evolution,” European Journal of operational
research, vol. 183, no. 2, pp. 785–804, 2007.
[16] R. Mallipeddi, P. N. Suganthan, Q.-K. Pan, and M. F. Tasgetiren,
“Differential evolution algorithm with ensemble of parameters and
mutation strategies,” Applied Soft Computing, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1679–
1696, 2011.
[17] X. Yu, X. Wang, J. Cao, and M. Cai, “An ensemble differential evolution for numerical optimization,” International Journal of Information
Technology & Decision Making, vol. 14, no. 04, pp. 915–942, 2015.
[18] S. Das, A. Ghosh, and S. S. Mullick, “A switched parameter differential
evolution for large scale global optimization–simpler may be better,” in
Mendel 2015, pp. 103–125, Springer, 2015.
[19] R. Mallipeddi, G. Iacca, P. N. Suganthan, F. Neri, and E. Mininno,
“Ensemble strategies in compact differential evolution,” in Evolutionary
Computation (CEC), 2011 IEEE Congress on, pp. 1972–1977, IEEE,
2011.
[20] E. Mininno, F. Neri, F. Cupertino, and D. Naso, “Compact differential
evolution,” Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 15,
no. 1, pp. 32–54, 2011.
[21] F. Neri and E. Mininno, “Memetic compact differential evolution for
cartesian robot control,” Computational Intelligence Magazine, IEEE,
vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 54–65, 2010.
[22] G. Wu, R. Mallipeddi, P. Suganthan, R. Wang, and H. Chen, “Differential
evolution with multi-population based ensemble of mutation strategies,”
Information Sciences, vol. 329, pp. 329–345, 2016.
[23] J. Zhang and A. C. Sanderson, “Jade: adaptive differential evolution
with optional external archive,” Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 945–958, 2009.
[24] C. Brown, Y. Jin, M. Leach, and M. Hodgson, “\ mu jade: adaptive
differential evolution with a small population,” Soft Computing, pp. 1–
10, 2015.
[25] I. Fajfar, T. Tuma, J. Puhan, J. Olenšek, and A. Bűrmen, “Towards
smaller populations in differential evolution,” J Microelectron Electron
Compon Mater, vol. 42, pp. 152–163, 2012.
[26] X. Ren, Z.-z. Chen, and Z. Ma, “Differential evolution using smaller
population,” in 2010 Second International Conference on Machine
Learning and Computing, pp. 76–80, IEEE, 2010.
[27] A. W. Mohamed, H. Z. Sabry, and M. Khorshid, “An alternative
differential evolution algorithm for global optimization,” Journal of
advanced research, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 149–165, 2012.

[28] M. Yang, Z. Cai, C. Li, and J. Guan, “An improved adaptive differential
evolution algorithm with population adaptation,” in Proceedings of
the 15th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation,
pp. 145–152, ACM, 2013.
[29] G. Iacca, R. Mallipeddi, E. Mininno, F. Neri, and P. N. Suganthan,
“Super-fit and population size reduction in compact differential evolution,” in Memetic Computing (MC), 2011 IEEE Workshop on, pp. 1–8,
IEEE, 2011.
[30] J. Aalto and J. Lampinen, “A population adaptation mechanism for
differential evolution algorithm,” in Computational Intelligence, 2015
IEEE Symposium Series on, pp. 1514–1521, IEEE, 2015.
[31] J. Brest and M. S. Maučec, “Population size reduction for the differential
evolution algorithm,” Applied Intelligence, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 228–247,
2008.
[32] S. Rahnamayan and H. R. Tizhoosh, “Image thresholding using micro
opposition-based differential evolution (micro-ode),” in Evolutionary
Computation, 2008. CEC 2008.(IEEE World Congress on Computational
Intelligence). IEEE Congress on, pp. 1409–1416, IEEE, 2008.
[33] K. E. Parsopoulos, “Cooperative micro-differential evolution for highdimensional problems,” in Proceedings of the 11th Annual conference
on Genetic and evolutionary computation, pp. 531–538, ACM, 2009.
[34] M. A. Sotelo-Figueroa, H. J. P. Soberanes, J. M. Carpio, H. J. F. Huacuja,
L. C. Reyes, and J. A. S. Alcaraz, “Evolving bin packing heuristic using
micro-differential evolution with indirect representation,” in Recent
Advances on Hybrid Intelligent Systems, pp. 349–359, Springer, 2013.
[35] N. S. Teng, J. Teo, and M. H. A. Hijazi, “Self-adaptive population sizing
for a tune-free differential evolution,” Soft Computing, vol. 13, no. 7,
pp. 709–724, 2009.
[36] W. Wang, H. Wang, H. Sun, and S. Rahnamayan, “Using oppositionbased learning to enhance differential evolution: A comparative study,”
in Evolutionary Computation (CEC), 2016 IEEE Congress on, pp. 71–
77, IEEE, 2016.
[37] H. Liu, Z. Wu, H. Wang, S. Rahnamayan, and C. Deng, “Improved
differential evolution with adaptive opposition strategy,” in Evolutionary
Computation (CEC), 2014 IEEE Congress on, pp. 1776–1783, IEEE,
2014.
[38] S. Rahnamayan, G. G. Wang, and M. Ventresca, “An intuitive distancebased explanation of opposition-based sampling,” Applied Soft Computing, vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 2828–2839, 2012.
[39] “http://coco.gforge.inria.fr/doku.php?id=cec-bbob-2015,”

