Bio-Inspired Feature Selection Algorithms With Their Applications: A Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on the principles of the biological evolution of nature, bio-inspired algorithms are gaining popularity in developing robust techniques for optimization. Unlike gradient descent optimization methods, these metaheuristic algorithms are computationally less expensive, and can also considerably perform well with nonlinear and high-dimensional data. Objectives: To understand the algorithms, application domains, effectiveness, and challenges of bio-inspired feature selection techniques. Method: A systematic literature review is conducted on five major digital databases of science and engineering. Results: The primary search included 695 articles. After removing 263 duplicated articles, 432 studies remained to be screened. Among those, 317 irrelevant papers were removed. We then excluded 77 studies according to the exclusion criteria. Finally, 38 articles were selected for this study. Conclusion: Out of 38 studies, 28 papers discussed Swarm-based algorithms, 2 papers studied Genetic Algorithms, and 8 papers covered algorithms in both categories. Considering the application domains, 21 of the articles focused on problems in the healthcare sector, while the rest mainly investigated issues in cybersecurity, text classification, and image processing. Hybridization with other BIAs was employed by approximately 18.5% of papers, and 13 out of 38 studies used S-shaped transfer functions. The majority of studies used supervised classification methods such as k-NN and SVM for building fitness functions. Accordingly, we conclude that future research should focus on applying bio-inspired feature selection to a diverse area of applications such as finance and social networks. And further exploration into enhancement techniques such as quantum representation, rough set theory, chaotic maps, and Lévy flight is necessary. Additionally, we suggest investigating other transfer functions besides S-shaped, such as V-shaped and X-shaped. Moreover, clustering and deep learning models for constructing fitness functions in bio-inspired feature selection algorithms need to be investigated further.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".