Mountaineering Team-Based Optimization: A Novel Human-Based Metaheuristic Algorithm
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a novel optimization method for solving real-world optimization problems. It is inspired by a cooperative human phenomenon named the mountaineering team-based optimization (MTBO) algorithm. Proposed for the first time, the MTBO algorithm is mathematically modeled to achieve a robust optimization algorithm based on the social behavior and human cooperation needed in considering the natural phenomena to reach a mountaintop, which represents the optimal global solution. To solve optimization problems, the proposed MTBO algorithm captures the phases of the regular and guided movement of climbers based on the leader’s experience, obstacles against reaching the peak and getting stuck in local optimality, and the coordination and social cooperation of the group to save members from natural hazards. The performance of the MTBO algorithm was tested with 30 known CEC 2014 test functions, as well as on classical engineering design problems, and the results were compared with that of well-known methods. It is shown that the MTBO algorithm is very competitive in comparison with state-of-art metaheuristic methods. The superiority of the proposed MTBO algorithm is further confirmed by statistical validation, as well as the Wilcoxon signed-rank test with advanced optimization algorithms. Compared to the other algorithms, the MTBO algorithm is more robust, easier to implement, exhibits effective optimization performance for a wide range of real-world test functions, and attains faster convergence to optimal global solutions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it