Giant Armadillo Optimization: A New Bio-Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithm for Solving Optimization Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a new bio-inspired metaheuristic algorithm called Giant Armadillo Optimization (GAO) is introduced, which imitates the natural behavior of giant armadillo in the wild. The fundamental inspiration in the design of GAO is derived from the hunting strategy of giant armadillos in moving towards prey positions and digging termite mounds. The theory of GAO is expressed and mathematically modeled in two phases: (i) exploration based on simulating the movement of giant armadillos towards termite mounds, and (ii) exploitation based on simulating giant armadillos' digging skills in order to prey on and rip open termite mounds. The performance of GAO in handling optimization tasks is evaluated in order to solve the CEC 2017 test suite for problem dimensions equal to 10, 30, 50, and 100. The optimization results show that GAO is able to achieve effective solutions for optimization problems by benefiting from its high abilities in exploration, exploitation, and balancing them during the search process. The quality of the results obtained from GAO is compared with the performance of twelve well-known metaheuristic algorithms. The simulation results show that GAO presents superior performance compared to competitor algorithms by providing better results for most of the benchmark functions. The statistical analysis of the Wilcoxon rank sum test confirms that GAO has a significant statistical superiority over competitor algorithms. The implementation of GAO on the CEC 2011 test suite and four engineering design problems show that the proposed approach has effective performance in dealing with real-world 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".