MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156628753 · doi:10.1049/ell2.12176

A greedy non‐hierarchical grey wolf optimizer for real‐world optimization

2021· article· en· W3156628753 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

VenueElectronics Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmark (surveying)HierarchyComputer scienceGreedy algorithmPerspective (graphical)Mathematical optimizationOptimization algorithmAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Grey wolf optimization (GWO) algorithm is a new emerging algorithm that is based on the social hierarchy of grey wolves as well as their hunting and cooperation strategies. Introduced in 2014, this algorithm has been used by a large number of researchers and designers, such that the number of citations to the original paper exceeded many other algorithms. In a recent study by Niu et al., one of the main drawbacks of this algorithm for optimizing real‐world problems was introduced. In summary, they showed that GWO's performance degrades as the optimal solution of the problem diverges from 0. In this paper, by introducing a straightforward modification to the original GWO algorithm, that is, neglecting its social hierarchy, the authors were able to largely eliminate this defect and open a new perspective for future use of this algorithm. The efficiency of the proposed method was validated by applying it to benchmark and real‐world engineering problems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.263 · 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