Lyrebird Optimization Algorithm: A New Bio-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithm for Solving Optimization Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a new bio-inspired metaheuristic algorithm called the Lyrebird Optimization Algorithm (LOA) that imitates the natural behavior of lyrebirds in the wild is introduced. The fundamental inspiration of LOA is the strategy of lyrebirds when faced with danger. In this situation, lyrebirds scan their surroundings carefully, then either run away or hide somewhere, immobile. LOA theory is described and then mathematically modeled in two phases: (i) exploration based on simulation of the lyrebird escape strategy and (ii) exploitation based on simulation of the hiding strategy. The performance of LOA was evaluated in optimization of the CEC 2017 test suite for problem dimensions equal to 10, 30, 50, and 100. The optimization results show that the proposed LOA approach has high ability in terms of exploration, exploitation, and balancing them during the search process in the problem-solving space. In order to evaluate the capability of LOA in dealing with optimization tasks, the results obtained from the proposed approach were compared with the performance of twelve well-known metaheuristic algorithms. The simulation results show that LOA has superior performance compared to competitor algorithms by providing better results in the optimization of most of the benchmark functions, achieving the rank of first best optimizer. A statistical analysis of the performance of the metaheuristic algorithms shows that LOA has significant statistical superiority in comparison with the compared algorithms. In addition, the efficiency of LOA in handling real-world applications was investigated through dealing with twenty-two constrained optimization problems from the CEC 2011 test suite and four engineering design problems. The simulation results show that LOA has effective performance in handling optimization tasks in real-world applications while providing better results compared to competitor algorithms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".