Using Improved Hybrid Grey Wolf Algorithm Based on Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm Onlooker and Scout Bee Operators 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
Abstract Grey Wolf optimization (GWO) is a newly developed stochastic meta-heuristic technique motivated by nature. It shows potential in diverse optimization challenges. It replicates grey wolf hunting behaviour and social hierarchy, exploring the solution space similar to their natural process. The algorithm efficiently explores and converges to the optimal solution. However, a drawback of the standard GWO is its limited exploitation capability due to its exploration-focused iterations. This may hinder finding the optimal solution nearby, leading to lower local convergence rates and degraded solution quality. To address this, the GWO-Employed-Onlooker model suggests incorporating the onlooker and scout bee operators from the artificial bee colony algorithm (ABC) during the position-changing stage of the grey wolves. This enhances exploitation capability, resulting in improved local convergence rates and better solution quality. The proposed method’s performance is evaluated on various optimization functions and compared their convergence rate to standard GWO, Genetic Algorithm (GA), Firefly Algorithm (FA), ABC, and Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) techniques. The results demonstrate that the proposed strategy GWO-Employed-Onlooker is better, indicating that it is valuable in solving optimization problems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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