AUTHOR=Bhattacharjee Vidyasagar , Roy Provas Kumar , Tejani Ghanshyam G. , Mousavirad Seyed Jalaleddin 

TITLE=Oppositional chaotic artificial hummingbird algorithm on engineering design optimization

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Mechanical Engineering

VOLUME=Volume 11 - 2025

YEAR=2025

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/mechanical-engineering/articles/10.3389/fmech.2025.1547819

DOI=10.3389/fmech.2025.1547819

ISSN=2297-3079

ABSTRACT=This paper proposes an enhanced-search form of the newly designed artificial hummingbird algorithm (AHA), named oppositional chaotic artificial hummingbird algorithm. The proposed OCAHA methodology incorporates the oppositional learning (OBL) in the population-initialization and at the ending event of each iteration for a faster convergence, and the chaos-embedded sequences of Gauss/mouse map to replace the random sequences of the three population-updating iterative stages of AHA, viz. guided, territorial and migration foraging to employ more diverse population for more solutional accuracy. The effectiveness of the method has been evaluated in two phases. OCAHA, the four state of the art algorithms, namely, PSO, DE, GWO and WOA, their recently developed effective variants, namely, SLPSO, MTDE, SOGWO and EWOA, and the inspiring optimizer AHA have been implemented on the 29 unconstrained CEC 2017 benchmark functions in the first phase. In the second phase, OCAHA has been verified on 10 challenging engineering cases, and compared with the concerned leading performances. Comprehensive analysis of the simulated outcomes using various statistical metrics and of the convergence profiles demonstrates that, the optimization ability of OCAHA on CEC 2017 is superior to all the comparing algorithms except MTDE. For engineering cases, OCAHA provides better searching performance, solution precision, robustness and convergence rate than all competing designs, and, on average, it has lowered the computational cost by 57.5% and 22.63% in term of function evaluations and the fitness objective by 2.4% and 0.23% in comparison to AHA and the chaotic version CAHA, respectively.