Fig 1.
Mass acceleration toward the result force in GSA [20].
Fig 2.
The variations of the proposed α(t) along with G(t).
Fig 3.
Performance comparison of different values of σ for multimodal function.
Table 1.
Unimodal benchmark functions.
Table 2.
Multimodal benchmark functions.
Table 3.
Minimization result of the unimodal benchmark functions in Table 1.
Table 4.
Minimization result of multimodal benchmark functions in Table 2.
Fig 4.
Performance comparison of ECGSA and GSA for F3.
Fig 5.
Performance comparison of ECGSA and GSA for F8.
Table 5.
Wilcoxon's rank-sum test between GSA and ECGSA for benchmark functions.
Table 6.
Composition tests functions.
Table 7.
Wilcoxon's rank-sum test between GSA and ECGSA for composition functions.
Fig 6.
The simplified flowchart of ECGSA beamforming.
Fig 7.
Comparison of performance of power response with 100 iterations for user at 0° with interference at 30°.
(a) MVDR, (b) PSO-MVDR, (c) GSA-MVDR, (d) SLGSA-MVDR [28] and (e) ECGSA-MVDR.
Table 8.
Comparison of weight vectors for conventional MVDR, PSO-MVDR, GSA-MVDR, SLGSA-MVDR [28] and ECGSA-MVDR for user at 0° and interferences at 30°.
Table 9.
Comparison of SINR calculation for conventional MVDR, PSO-MVDR, GSA-MVDR, SLGSA-MVDR [28] and ECGSA-MVDR for user at 0° and interference at 30°.
Fig 8.
Comparison of performance of power response with 100 iterations for user at 0°with two interferences at 30° and 50°.
(a) MVDR, (b) PSO-MVDR, (c) GSA-MVDR, (d) SLGSA-MVDR [28] and (e) ECGAS-MVDR.
Table 10.
Comparison of weight vectors for conventional MVDR, PSO-MVDR, GSA-MVDR, SLGSA-MVDR [28] and ECGSA-MVDR for user at 0° and interferences at 30°and 50°.
Table 11.
Comparison of SINR calculation for conventional MVDR, PSO-MVDR, GSA-MVDR, SLGSA-MVDR [28] and ECGSA-MVDR for user at 0° and interference at 30°and 50°.