Table 3 Performance comparison of four algorithms

F1

0.000201

0.000358

9.8969e−28

1.7798e−27

1.3287e−71

4.6923e−71

2.987e−235

0.000000

F2

0.027834

0.022819

9.4228e−17

4.0359e−17

6.5191e−52

1.3916e−51

7.4087e−122

2.7436e−121

F3

3.2627

2.829

3.254

3.5172

2.537

2.8982

1.1964

0.60541

F4

1.0994

0.20903

6.1646e−07

5.0583e−07

43.683

30.5652

2.9716e−120

1.5375e−119

F5

82.3794

94.0824

27.9435

0.85738

27.996

0.53038

27.8959

0.1526

F6

9.3017e−05

0.000108

0.80641

0.41776

0.39688

0.23078

0.20277

0.065166

F7

0.17078

0.057366

0.002217

0.001334

0.003305

0.004761

8.907e−05

6.9351e−05

F8

56.481

15.5315

2.8209

3.4839

0.000000

0.000000

0.000000

0.000000

F9

0.009372

0.009238

0.002068

0.005518

0.011227

0.042789

0.000000

0.000000

F10

0.010368

0.041732

0.041238

0.016416

0.032643

0.044017

0.007025

0.002786

F11

0.39789

0.000000

0.39789

4.6716e−06

0.39789

8.4987e−06

0.39878

0.003067

F12

\(-8.5514\)

3.1639

\(-10.4012\)

0.000910

\(-7.8285\)

2.963

\(-8.0695\)

2.3667