Detailed Review Comments to author
1) The paper requires editing in general.
2) This reviewer did not find a new contribution in the proposed paper. What is the new contribution? A new logic in the relay algorithm is implemented.
3) The literature review in the introduction section is very poor where the authors do not describe the contribution, merits, and restriction of each paper individually.
4) Reference need to be updated
5) The result comparison with similar random search algorithm is missing and need to be included and more extended. The errors must be shown when compared with the reference results.
6) The conclusion needs to be revised.

Thank you for the improvements to the paper. The paper contribution is well represented in the revised version. The authors considered the reviewers comments in this version.

Thank you for the improvements to the paper. The paper contribution is well represented in the revised version. The authors considered the reviewers comments in this version.