MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046155783 · doi:10.1002/eng2.12212

A critical analysis of the bat algorithm

2020· article· en· W3046155783 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaheuristicParticle swarm optimizationSimulated annealingComputer scienceAlgorithmParallel metaheuristicTransparency (behavior)Set (abstract data type)Mathematical optimizationMATLABMetric (unit)Multi-swarm optimizationSwarm behaviourMathematicsArtificial intelligenceEngineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article presents an analysis of the bat algorithm (BA) based on elementary mathematical analysis and statistical comparisons of the first hitting time performance metric distributions obtained on a test set comprising five carefully selected objective functions. The findings show that the BA is not an original contribution to the metaheuristics literature and that it is not generally superior to the Particle Swarm Optimization algorithm when fair comparisons are made. It is also shown that some components of the BA can be either replaced by simpler alternatives or be removed entirely to increase performance. Finally, the results suggest that the best version of the BA is in fact a simple hybrid between Particle Swarm Optimization and Simulated Annealing. To encourage more transparency in metaheuristics research, the entirety of the MATLAB code used in this article is available in a GitHub repository for suggestions and/or corrections.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it