OOBO: A New Metaheuristic Algorithm for Solving Optimization Problems
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 study proposes the One-to-One-Based Optimizer (OOBO), a new optimization technique for solving optimization problems in various scientific areas. The key idea in designing the suggested OOBO is to effectively use the knowledge of all members in the process of updating the algorithm population while preventing the algorithm from relying on specific members of the population. We use a one-to-one correspondence between the two sets of population members and the members selected as guides to increase the involvement of all population members in the update process. Each population member is chosen just once as a guide and is only utilized to update another member of the population in this one-to-one interaction. The proposed OOBO's performance in optimization is evaluated with fifty-two objective functions, encompassing unimodal, high-dimensional multimodal, and fixed-dimensional multimodal types, and the CEC 2017 test suite. The optimization results highlight the remarkable capacity of OOBO to strike a balance between exploration and exploitation within the problem-solving space during the search process. The quality of the optimization results achieved using the proposed OOBO is evaluated by comparing them to eight well-known algorithms. The simulation findings show that OOBO outperforms the other algorithms in addressing optimization problems and can give more acceptable quasi-optimal solutions. Also, the implementation of OOBO in six engineering problems shows the effectiveness of the proposed approach in solving real-world optimization applications.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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