Metaheuristic Optimization of Artificial Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Survey of Techniques, Taxonomies, and Trends (2015–2025)
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
Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) excel across vision, language, and decision-making, yet their performance hinges on well-chosen weights, hyperparameters, and architecture settings where classical gradient methods can stall or overfit.This survey consolidates a decade of work (2015-2025) on metaheuristic assistance for ANN optimization, covering evolutionary, swarm-intelligence, physics-inspired, and hybrid paradigms.We propose a unified taxonomy that cross-classifies optimization targets (weights, structure, hyperparameters) with hybridization depth (sequential, embedded, post-training), and we synthesize quantitative trends from recent mappings alongside a curated dataset.The evidence indicates a sharp post-2019 acceleration, with swarm methods remaining the largest family and hybrids the fastest-growing, particularly in energy, industrial, healthcare, and cybersecurity applications.We analyze methodological gaps statistical rigor, compute/energy reporting, and reproducibility and outline a research agenda centered on self-adaptive controllers, multi-objective and constraint-aware formulations, and quantum-inspired diversity mechanisms.By integrating taxonomy, original visuals, and critical appraisal, this article clarifies how metaheuristics act as adaptive schedulers for modern ANN training and provides practical guidance for designing robust, resourceaware optimization pipelines.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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