Every time a power grid operator decides how much electricity each generator should produce, a quiet balancing act takes place. Burning less fuel saves money, but it often means allowing more pollution, and cutting emissions usually drives costs up. Engineers have long searched for a way to satisfy both goals at once, a challenge known as combined economic emission dispatch, or CEED. Now, a team of researchers has turned to one of the ocean’s most graceful feeders, the manta ray, for inspiration, and the result is an optimization algorithm that outperforms a crowded field of competitors on both cost and cleanliness.
The study, published in the journal Results in Engineering by Yu-Feng Sun, Jie-Sheng Wang and colleagues, describes an enhanced version of the Manta Ray Foraging Optimization algorithm, or MRFO. The original algorithm, first introduced a few years ago, mimics the cooperative hunting strategies that manta rays use to harvest plankton. Because plankton drifts unpredictably with seasons and weather, manta rays have evolved three distinct foraging behaviors: chain foraging, in which animals line up in arcs so that each one catches food missed by the one ahead; spiral foraging, where the group coils around a dense patch of food; and somersaulting, in which individuals flip back and forth around a promising spot. Translated into mathematics, these behaviors become rules that move a population of candidate solutions around a search space, gradually converging on the best answer.
What makes the CEED problem so stubborn is its mathematical character. The relationship between a generator’s output and its fuel consumption follows a cubic curve, and the emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide each follow their own cubic functions. The combined objective is nonlinear, nonconvex and discontinuous, riddled with local minima that can trap classical techniques such as lambda iteration or gradient-based methods. To make matters harder, the problem is genuinely multi-objective, so the researchers converted it into a single objective by applying price penalty factors that fold the cost of each pollutant into one total figure in dollars per hour.
Constraint handling is where many algorithms stumble. Traditional approaches add a fixed penalty whenever a solution violates the power balance requirement, the equation demanding that total generation minus transmission losses equals demand. But a fixed penalty is a blunt instrument. Set it too low and the algorithm happily returns infeasible schedules; set it too high and the search becomes so restricted that it cannot explore properly. Finding the right value through trial and simulation is time-consuming and inefficient. The team’s answer was to make the penalty itself dynamic, drawing on five different mathematical functions: sinusoidal, hyperbolic tangent, arctangent, linear and hyperbolic secant. Each function is raised to an order that changes during the run, so the penalty strength adapts to both the size of the violation and the stage of the optimization. Early on, mild penalties preserve exploration; later, penalties tighten to push solutions toward feasibility.
The second major innovation targets the heart of the MRFO algorithm. In the original design, a parameter called C governs the switch between exploration, casting the net wide across the search space, and exploitation, homing in on the best solution found so far. This parameter rises monotonically from zero to one, a predictable march that can leave the algorithm poorly balanced at certain stages. The researchers replaced it with a chaotic switching factor, drawn from nine well-known chaotic maps including Chebyshev, logistic, tent, sine, Gauss and singer maps, combined with an exponential adjustment function. The result is a parameter that still trends upward but oscillates along the way, periodically reopening the search space and preventing the population from settling prematurely into a local optimum.
To find out which chaotic map worked best, the team ran all nine enhanced variants, named C1MRFO through C9MRFO, through the CEC-2022 benchmark suite of twelve test functions, using a population of thirty and five hundred iterations averaged over thirty independent runs. The Chebyshev-based variant, C1MRFO, emerged as the overall winner, ranking first among the nine and beating the original MRFO, which finished last. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests confirmed that most of the improvements were statistically significant, with p-values below the conventional 0.05 threshold. When C1MRFO was pitted against a roster of state-of-the-art metaheuristics, including the dhole optimization algorithm, evolutionary mating algorithm, dung beetle optimizer, snow geese algorithm, particle swarm optimization, grey wolf optimizer, sparrow search algorithm and marine predators algorithm, it achieved the best final rank, taking first place on many of the test functions while keeping computational times competitive.
The real test, however, came when the algorithm was applied to actual dispatch problems. The researchers simulated a six-unit power system under four load demands of 150, 175, 200 and 225 megawatts. Across all four scenarios, C1MRFO produced the lowest comprehensive total cost, which combines fuel cost with the weighted penalties for carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions. At 150 megawatts, for example, it reached a total cost of about 10,137 dollars per hour, edging out the grey wolf optimizer and clearly beating algorithms such as the arithmetic optimization algorithm, Harris hawks optimization, whale optimization algorithm, sine cosine algorithm, particle swarm optimization and the lambda iteration method. The pattern held at every load level, with the margin over the weakest classical method growing to thousands of dollars per hour at 225 megawatts.
The dynamic penalty functions delivered a further, striking gain. When the sinusoidal penalty function was applied with the parameter order set to dy5, the total cost at 150 megawatts dropped from roughly 10,137 to 9,065.71 dollars per hour, and similar reductions appeared at the higher loads, reaching 14,621.45 dollars per hour at 225 megawatts. Comparing the five penalty shapes, the sinusoidal function consistently produced the lowest minimum costs, beating the hyperbolic tangent, arctangent, linear and hyperbolic secant alternatives by margins ranging from hundreds to nearly two thousand dollars per hour depending on the load. Notably, when the penalty order was fixed rather than dynamic, performance was worst across the board, confirming that the adaptivity of the penalty, not merely its presence, is what matters.
To verify that each improvement contributes on its own, the team conducted an ablation study on a much larger twenty-unit system with a total demand of 2,500 megawatts. The results formed a clear hierarchy: the original MRFO achieved 61,835.16 dollars per hour, the chaos-enhanced C1MRFO reached 61,826.11, and the fully improved version combining chaos with the optimal sinusoidal dynamic penalty, sin(dy5)MRFO, achieved the best figure of 61,807.36 dollars per hour. All three outperformed the phasor particle swarm optimization benchmark, which came in at 61,895.57 dollars per hour. The stepwise improvement demonstrates that the two enhancements are not redundant but superimpose their benefits, and that the framework scales to systems far larger than the six-unit case.
The authors are careful to note where the work goes next. The current approach converts the multi-objective problem into a single objective through price penalty factors, but future versions could adopt Pareto-based multi-objective optimization to generate full sets of non-dominated trade-off solutions. The test cases also assume deterministic demand, so extending the algorithm to stochastic dispatch with wind and solar integration is another goal, as is combining the dynamic penalty with feasibility-first constraint-handling strategies. For now, the study offers a compelling demonstration that borrowing the foraging logic of a filter-feeding fish, perturbing it with chaos, and teaching it to calibrate its own punishments can squeeze meaningful savings and emission reductions out of one of power engineering’s hardest scheduling problems.
Subject of Research: An improved manta ray foraging optimization algorithm with chaotic switching factors and dynamic penalty functions for solving the combined economic emission dispatch problem in power systems.
Article Title: Manta ray foraging optimization algorithm with dynamic penalty function and chaos switching factor to solve combined economic emission dispatch problem
Article References: Sun, Y.-F., Wang, J.-S., Zhang, X.-Y., Li, Y.-X., Guan, X.-Y., & Liu, X. (2026). Manta ray foraging optimization algorithm with dynamic penalty function and chaos switching factor to solve combined economic emission dispatch problem. Results in Engineering, 32, Article 113383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2026.113383
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: Not provided
Keywords: manta ray foraging optimization, combined economic emission dispatch, metaheuristic algorithms, chaotic maps, dynamic penalty function, power system optimization, emission reduction, fuel cost minimization, CEC-2022 benchmarks, swarm intelligence, constraint handling, Results in Engineering
Login
