Figure 4 Window of Maximum Similarity between AOG_1 and (static) quadratic function.
Table 1 reports the best solutions for function AOG_1 . The type of variables (ToV) is included since evaluations considered the bounds (\(\mathbf{x}_{\mathbf{1}}^{\mathbf{U}}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{x}_{\mathbf{1}}^{\mathbf{L}}\),\(\mathbf{x}_{\mathbf{2}}^{\mathbf{U}}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{x}_{\mathbf{2}}^{\mathbf{L}}\)) as both continuous and integer variables. Also, the best solution, the best objective function value (OFV) found, WMS dimensions and location for each case are reported. The function AOG_1 , the quadratic function\(\mathbf{Z=}\mathbf{f}\left(\mathbf{x}_{\mathbf{1}}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{x}_{\mathbf{2}}\right)\)to superimpose, and the WMS of the composite objective function for the integer case are presented in Figure 4. In all cases, the stationary point (0, 0) is within the WMS. According to the results, it is possible to conclude that the method demonstrated potential to find regions of similarity between two responses, where optimality can be a pattern of interest.
Table 1 Results for AOG_1 , and quadratic (static) function to superimpose.