MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410898856 · doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2025.4.004

An improved pelican optimization algorithm for function optimization and constrained engineering design problems

2025· article· en· W4410898856 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Haval Tariq Sadeeq, Araz Rajab Abrahim, Thamer Hassan Hameed, Najdavan A. Kako, D. Mohamed Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueDecision Science Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPelicanMathematical optimizationMulti-objective optimizationFunction (biology)Optimization algorithmEngineering optimizationComputer scienceFunction optimizationAlgorithmOptimization problemEngineeringMathematicsGenetic algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metaheuristic algorithms are a class of optimization techniques that have revolutionized problem-solving across various domains. These algorithms provide a versatile and powerful approach to finding near-optimal solutions for complex, combinatorial, and computationally intensive problems. They draw inspiration from natural processes, such as evolution, swarm behavior, or annealing, to iteratively refine solutions by intelligently navigating the problem space. Metaheuristics have become indispensable tools in both academia and industry, helping researchers and practitioners address real-world problems efficiently and effectively. The Pelican optimization algorithm (POA) is a recently developed metaheuristic algorithm that simulates the hunting behavior of pelicans. In complex optimization problems, an POA may have slow convergence or fall in sub-optimal regions, especially in high complex ones. In this paper, Levy flight is integrated into the exploration phase to enhance its search capabilities. Furthermore, a novel exponential parameter has been introduced to enhance the algorithm's overall performance by facilitating a smoother shift between exploration and exploitation phases. These modifications are intended to keep the algorithm from being locked in local optima. The developed algorithm named as IPOA was tested using widely recognized twenty-three benchmark functions with a variety of characteristics, a set of CEC2022 test suites, and five different engineering constrained problems. The results demonstrate the superiority and effectiveness of IPOA in tackling function optimization and constrained design engineering 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDecision Science LettersSame topicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207