Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 60 references

Social Distancing Induced Coronavirus Optimization Algorithm (COVO): Application to Multimodal Function Optimization and Noise Removal

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A new optimizer built on infection, recovery, and distancing rules reports the best fitness error on all 13 standard benchmarks, and the same engine is used to clean ECG signals.

desk verdict A thin relabeling of CVOA whose own tables and significance tests contradict the paper's central claims; desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17282 v1 pith:O64NV3FJ submitted 2024-11-26 cs.CC cs.AI

Om Ramakisan Varma , Mala Kalra This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CCcs.AI
keywords COVID-19SocialDistancingInducedCoronavirusOptimizationAlgorithmMetaheuristicAlgorithmsStandardBenchmarkFunctionsECGnoiseremovalconvergenceanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes COVO, a population-based metaheuristic whose update rules translate the COVID-19 epidemic response — infection, super-spreading, travel, recovery, death, and social distancing — into search moves. The authors claim that on thirteen standard benchmark functions, covering unimodal, step, quartic-noise, and multimodal landscapes, COVO converges faster and reaches lower fitness error than ten published optimizers, including a best error of $1.23\times 10^{-18}$ on F1 and $0$ on F9. They further apply COVO to remove Gaussian noise from an ECG signal by optimizing the unmixing matrix of independent component analysis, reporting a mean square error of $0.18787$ between original and reconstructed signal. If the claims hold, COVO would be a competitive, gradient-free optimizer for complex multimodal problems and signal-denoising tasks. The paper also argues that the social-distancing rule lets the search terminate without a pre-set stopping criterion.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the social-distancing parameter $H_{dist}$, a distance-gated scalar computed from $\lVert X_i^t - X_j^t\rVert$ and the constant $\Delta$ via equation (5). It selects among three position updates: a plain random restart within the bounds, a spread-rate-scaled restart $L + (U-L)S_{rate}$, and a super-spreader restart $L + (U-L)S_{Srate}$. The death probability $P_{die}$ doubles as an acceptance threshold in equation (8), deciding whether a candidate is updated or discarded, while chaotic maps generate $P_{die}$ and the death rate and opposition-based learning doubles the initial population. The intended effect is a balance of exploration through distancing-driven restarts and exploitation through spread-scaled moves, which the authors identify as the source of COVO's convergence speed and low error.

What would settle it

Run COVO and the ten baselines on F1–F13 with fixed dimensions, equal numbers of fitness evaluations, and many independent repeats, using the paper's listed parameter values, and check whether COVO's claimed best errors ($1.23\times10^{-18}$ on F1, $0$ on F9) and its 100.5-second runtime reproduce. Since the paper's own Friedman and Wilcoxon tests give COVO p-values of 0.9259 and 0.1277 — both above 0.05 — recomputing those tests from the reported tables would already show that the data do not support a statistically significant difference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, COVO treats each candidate solution as a person who may be susceptible, infected, recovered, dead, or traveling. Infected individuals die with probability $P_{die}$; those who survive spread the virus at a normal rate $S_{rate}$ or, for super-spreaders, at $S_{Srate}$, and they may travel with probability $P_{travel}$. The key control is the social-distancing parameter $H_{dist}$, obtained from the pairwise distance $dist_{ij}^t = \lVert X_i^t - X_j^t\rVert$ and a constant $\Delta$: $H_{dist}=\Delta$ when the distance is at least $\Delta$, otherwise $H_{dist} = |dist_{ij}^t - \Delta|$. If $H_{dist}$ is below the threshold $T$, a zero-infected patient is restarted as $X = L + (U-L)$; if above, the restart is scaled by the spread rate, $X = L + (U-L)S_{rate}$; traveling individuals use the super-spreading rate instead. After fitness evaluation, a solution with fitness larger than $P_{die}$ is refined as $X_{new} = X_{old} \pm P_{die} Fit$, while a solution with fitness below $P_{die}$ is declared dead and the population is re-initialized. The paper reports best, median, worst, mean, and standard deviation for all thirteen functions, states that COVO's errors are lower than EHO, SSA, SSO, SFO, BOA, BWO, SMO, CVOA, SRO, and GBRUN in all thirteen cases, and concludes that the algorithm is highly convergent.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim assumes the comparison is fair: all ten baseline algorithms ran under identical, properly tuned conditions with the same initialization, dimension, iteration budget, and number of runs, yet the results section (Section IV, Tables IV–VIII) reports none of those settings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If COVO's reported errors are reproducible, it would give practitioners a single optimizer that outperforms ten established metaheuristics on thirteen standard test functions spanning unimodal, step, quartic-noise, and multimodal landscapes.
  • The ECG experiment suggests a concrete use case: COVO-optimized ICA could lower reconstruction error from about 0.998 for the contaminated signal to 0.18787, indicating meaningful noise removal in blind source separation.
  • COVO's reported runtime of 100.5 seconds, lower than all ten compared methods, would make it attractive when fitness evaluations are expensive.
  • Because the algorithm uses no gradient information, it would apply to discrete as well as continuous and non-smooth optimization problems, as the paper claims.
  • The distance-gated restart mechanism, if verified, would be a reusable design pattern for other population-based optimizers on multimodal problems.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: The paper reports one best value per function; the $1.23\times10^{-18}$ figure is at most a single-trajectory statement until repeated runs with means and standard deviations are published.
  • Editorial inference: If $H_{dist}$ drives the claimed convergence, then an ablation that fixes $H_{dist}=0$, forcing only the random-restart branch, should measurably worsen results on multimodal functions F9–F13; this ablation is not in the paper and is a direct test of the mechanism.
  • Editorial inference: The conclusion's references to three IEEE-CEC 2011 engineering problems and to 'eight' comparison algorithms are not supported by the reported experiments, which cover thirteen benchmark functions and ten baselines; those statements should not be read as validated results.
  • Editorial inference: The same social-distancing gate could be attached to other population algorithms as a restart rule driven by population dispersion; whether the benefit transfers is an open, testable question.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces COVO, a population-based metaheuristic inspired by COVID-19 social distancing, and claims that it outperforms ten published metaheuristics on 13 standard benchmark functions and improves ECG signal noise removal by optimizing the ICA demixing matrix. The paper provides Algorithm 1, benchmark definitions, convergence plots, statistical tables, and a noise-removal experiment. The central claims are that COVO reaches a fitness error of 1.23e-18, converges better than all baselines in all 13 test cases, and produces a denoised ECG signal closer to the original than the noisy input.

Significance. If the claims were supported, COVO would be a competitive stochastic optimizer and a potentially useful denoising tool, adding to the family of epidemiology-inspired metaheuristics. The pseudocode and benchmark definitions are clearly stated, and the authors explicitly report p-values from Friedman and Wilcoxon tests rather than omitting them. However, the reported data contradict the central claims: the noise-removal table shows the reconstructed signal is farther from the original than the contaminated signal in every row, and the reported significance tests find no statistically significant advantage for COVO. With no experimental protocol and no reproducible numerical comparison, the contribution is not established. I credit the authors for including the full algorithm listing and for reporting the negative significance-test results, but these strengths do not overcome the internal contradictions.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV-C, Table V] The noise-removal application is contradicted by the paper's own table. For sample sizes 100-103, the reported MSEo-r values (1.584837, 1.532555, 0.18787, 0.18787) are all larger than the corresponding MSEo-c values (0.997821, 0.99999, 0.99889, 0.998061). Since MSEo-r is the error between the original and reconstructed ECG and MSEo-c is the error between the original and the contaminated input, the reconstructed signal is farther from the original than the noisy input in every row. Section IV-C's statement that the results 'demonstrate that COVO improves the demixing matrix for noise reduction' is therefore directly contradicted by Table V. This invalidates one of the two advertised contributions of the paper.
  2. [IV-E, Tables VII-IX] The significance tests reported by the authors contradict the headline comparison. Table VII gives COVO a Friedman p-value of 0.925938, Table VIII gives a Wilcoxon p-value of 0.127665, and Table IX gives a P-test p-value of 0.936619; all exceed 0.05, and the text in Section IV-E explicitly says that no statistically significant differences were found. Section IV-A nonetheless concludes that COVO 'has performed better than the traditional models in all 13 cases' and is 'highly convergent.' These statements cannot both be true on the reported evidence. Either the statistical tests are mis-specified or the comparison claims are over-stated; as written, the data do not support a significant advantage for COVO.
  3. [IV, Tables IV-VI] No experimental protocol is reported. The reader is not told the dimension of the benchmark functions, the number of independent runs, the iteration or fitness-evaluation budget, the initialization scheme, or the termination criterion, and there is no indication that the ten baseline algorithms were run under comparable budgets or parameter configurations. Table IV reports statistics for COVO only, and the comparison values appear only in Figure 5 and in scattered textual statements rather than in a complete numeric table. Without this information, the claim of superiority over ten baselines on 13 functions is not auditable or reproducible.
  4. [III-B, Table I] The novelty claim is weakened by the relation to CVOA. Table I is explicitly headed 'COVO PARAMETERS [47]', and the update equations and death/recovery/spread structure in Section III-B closely follow the CVOA workflow of reference [47]. The social-distancing operator of Eq. (5) is the only clearly new component, but no ablation study or direct COVO-vs-CVOA comparison isolates its effect. The paper therefore does not demonstrate what the social-distance mechanism contributes to the reported results, and the claimed novelty is not supported by the experiments.
minor comments (5)
  1. [V] The conclusion states that 'three real-world engineering challenges from IEEE-CEC 2011 are used to validate' the method, but no CEC-2011 experiments appear anywhere in Section IV; either add those experiments or remove the sentence.
  2. [V] The conclusion also calls the model 'parameter-free', yet Table I lists eleven parameters including N, S_rate, SS_rate, travelP, P_die, D_rate, H_dist, T, L, U, and Delta; this wording should be corrected.
  3. [Tables I and II] Tables I and II disagree on the initial values: Table I reports P_die=0.43597 and D_rate=0.13955, while Table II reports P_die=1 and D_rate=0.888557; the manuscript should state which configuration generated the reported results.
  4. [V] The conclusion mentions comparisons with 'eight cutting-edge metaheuristic approaches', but Section IV-A lists ten baselines; the count should be made consistent.
  5. [III-B, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) is typeset unclearly and is not used transparently in Algorithm 1: the piecewise definition and the role of Delta are unclear, and the pseudo-code compares H_dist with T without explaining how H_dist is computed from pairwise distances at each iteration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: COVO's performance claims are empirical and its update equations are constructive; no prediction reduces to a fitted input or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper contains no derivation whose conclusion is assumed in its premises. The COVO update rules (Eqs. 1-8) are constructive heuristics, and the benchmark results in Tables IV-IX are reported empirical outcomes rather than predictions derived from fitted parameters. The algorithm's parameters are cited from the earlier CVOA paper [47] in Tables I and II, but that citation is provenance for implementation constants, not a load-bearing self-citation, and [47] is not authored by the current authors. No uniqueness theorem or external result is invoked to force COVO's design. The claimed outperformance is not circular: it is an empirical assertion, albeit one undermined by the reported p-values (Tables VII-IX) and by the noise-removal table (Table V), where MSEo-r exceeds MSEo-c in all rows. Those are correctness and evidence problems, not circularity. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper contributes a sequence of update rules with many hand-set or inherited constants, no ablation separating the new social-distancing rule from the prior CVOA machinery, and no out-of-sample validation. The only external evidence is the benchmark suite, but the parameters and statistical protocol are not controlled enough to separate algorithm behavior from tuning artifacts.

free parameters (9)
  • Population size N = 10 (Table II)
    Hand-chosen population size; no sensitivity analysis is provided and it strongly affects search behavior.
  • Spreading rate S_rate = 0.3575
    Inherited from CVOA [47]; no tuning rationale or ablation is given.
  • Super spreading rate SS_rate = 0.80138
    Used in Eq. (6); value is arbitrary or inherited, with no justification.
  • Travel probability travelP = 0
    A binary parameter set to 0 in Table II; this choice determines which update branch is used.
  • Probability of death P_die = 1 (Table II) vs 0.43597 (Table I)
    Contradictory values in the two parameter tables; this parameter controls the update rule in Eq. (8).
  • Death rate D_rate = 0.888557
    Inherited value, no independent derivation.
  • Social distancing parameter H_dist = 0.87306 (Table II) vs 13.77323 (Table I)
    Central to the proposed social-distancing operator in Eq. (5); the two tables give different values and no calibration method is provided.
  • Threshold T = 0.5
    Hand-set threshold that selects between Eqs. (3) and (4); no justification is given.
  • Constant Delta = 0.41466
    Appears in Eq. (5) to define social distance; no derivation or sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Maintaining social distance between solutions improves global search.
    The core inspiration in Section III-A; no formal or empirical proof is given that this analogy transfers from epidemiology to optimization.
  • domain assumption Opposition-based learning improves initial candidate solutions.
    Step 3 cites [62] and applies opposition-based learning without an ablation comparing COVO with and without it.
  • domain assumption Chaotic maps in Eqs. (1) and (2) produce suitable stochastic parameters.
    The maps are inherited from [61]; no evidence is provided that they improve COVO over uniform random parameters.
invented entities (2)
  • Social distancing operator H_dist
    purpose: Position update rule that triggers different sampling behavior based on distance between solutions (Eqs. (3) to (6)).
    A purely algorithmic construct with no falsifiable consequence outside the paper; its value differs between Tables I and II.
  • Zero-infected patient PZ
    purpose: Seed solution used to model the first infected person and drive exploration.
    Algorithmic bookkeeping with no independent observable meaning.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Social Distancing Induced Coronavirus Optimization Algorithm (COVO): Application to Multimodal Function Optimization and Noise Removal." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O64NV3FJ

@misc{pith2026241117282,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Social Distancing Induced Coronavirus Optimization Algorithm (COVO): Application to Multimodal Function Optimization and Noise Removal},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O64NV3FJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17282}
}
read the original abstract

The metaheuristic optimization technique attained more awareness for handling complex optimization problems. Over the last few years, numerous optimization techniques have been developed that are inspired by natural phenomena. Recently, the propagation of the new COVID-19 implied a burden on the public health system to suffer several deaths. Vaccination, masks, and social distancing are the major steps taken to minimize the spread of the deadly COVID-19 virus. Considering the social distance to combat the coronavirus epidemic, a novel bio-inspired metaheuristic optimization model is proposed in this work, and it is termed as Social Distancing Induced Coronavirus Optimization Algorithm (COVO). The pace of propagation of the coronavirus can indeed be slowed by maintaining social distance. Thirteen benchmark functions are used to evaluate the COVO performance for discrete, continuous, and complex problems, and the COVO model performance is compared with other well-known optimization algorithms. The main motive of COVO optimization is to obtain a global solution to various applications by solving complex problems with faster convergence. At last, the validated results depict that the proposed COVO optimization has a reasonable and acceptable performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17282 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Total Coronavirus Cases from January 2020 to May 2024 [59] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [47]

    Coronavirus Optimization Algorithm: A Bioinspired Metaheuristic Based on the COVID -19 Propagation Model,

    F. Martínez-Álvarez, G. Asencio-Cortés, J.F.Torres, D. Gutiérrez - Avilés, L. Melgar-García, R. Pérez-Chacón, C. Rubio-Escudero, J.C. Riquelme, and A. Troncoso, “Coronavirus Optimization Algorithm: A Bioinspired Metaheuristic Based on the COVID -19 Propagation Model,” Big Data , vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 308 –322, 2020, doi: 10.1089/big.2020.0051

    work page arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    A new optimization algorithm based on mimicking the voting process for leader selection,

    P. Trojovský and M. Dehghani, “A new optimization algorithm based on mimicking the voting process for leader selection,” PeerJ Comput. Sci., vol. 8, pp. 1–40, 2022, doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.976

    work page doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.976 2022

  3. [3]

    An efficient multi-thresholding based COVID-19 CT images segmentation approach using an improved equilibrium optimizer,

    E. H. Houssein, B. E. D. Helmy, D. Oliva, P. Jangir, P. Manoharan A. A. Elngar, and H. Shaban, “An efficient multi-thresholding based COVID-19 CT images segmentation approach using an improved equilibrium optimizer,” Biomed. Signal Process. Control, vol. 73, no. July 2021, p. 103401, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.bspc.2021.103401

    work page arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    A comparative evaluation of genetic and gradient -based algorithms applied to aerodynamic optimization,

    D. W. Zingg, M. Nemec, and T. H. Pulliam, “A comparative evaluation of genetic and gradient -based algorithms applied to aerodynamic optimization,” Eur. J. Comput. Mech., vol. 17, no. 1–2, pp. 103–126, 2008, doi: 10.3166/REMN.17.103-126

    work page doi:10.3166/remn.17.103-126 2008

  5. [5]

    K. V. Price, R. M. Storn, and J. Lampinen, Differential Evolution-A Practical Approach to Global Optimization . 2005. doi: 10.1007/3 - 540-31306-0_12

    doi:10.1007/3 2005

  6. [6]

    Cuckoo Search and Firefly Algorith m: Overview and Analysis,

    X. S. Yang, “Cuckoo Search and Firefly Algorith m: Overview and Analysis,” Stud. Comput. Intell. , vol. 585, pp. 1 –26, 2014, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-02141-6

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02141-6 2014

  7. [7]

    Bio-Inspired Computation and Optimization: An Overview

    X. S. Yang, S. F. Chien, and T. O. Ting, "Bio-Inspired Computation and Optimization: An Overview", Bio-Inspired Computation in Telecommunications., pp. 1 -21, 2015. doi: 10.1016/B978 -0-12- 801538-4.00001-X

    doi:10.1016/b978 2015

  8. [8]

    Honey-bee mating optimization (HBMO) algorithm for optimal reservoir operation,

    A. Afshar, O. Bozorg Haddad, M. A. Mariño, and B. J. Adams, “Honey-bee mating optimization (HBMO) algorithm for optimal reservoir operation,” J. Franklin Inst., vol. 344, no. 5, pp. 452 –462, 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.jfranklin.2006.06.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jfranklin.2006.06.001 2007

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Grey Wolf Optimizer,

    S. Mirjalili, S. M. Mirjalili, and A. Lewis, “Grey Wolf Optimizer,” Adv. Eng. Softw. , vol. 69, pp. 46 –61, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2013.12.007

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    M. A. Al -Betar, Z. A. A. Alyasseri, M. A. Awadallah, and I. Abu Doush, Coronavirus herd immunity optimizer (CHIO) , Neural Comput Appl., vol. 33, no. 10. pp. 5011 -5042, 2021. doi: 10.1007/s00521-020-05296-6

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    The Whale Optimization Algorithm,

    S. Mirjalili and A. Lewis, “The Whale Optimization Algorithm,” Adv. Eng. Softw. , vol. 95, pp. 51 –67, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2016.01.008

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    From ants to whales: metaheuristics for all tastes,

    F. Fausto, A. Reyna-Orta, E. Cuevas, Á. G. Andrade, and M. Perez- Cisneros, "From ants to whales: metaheuristics for all tastes," Artif Intell Rev, vol. 53, no. 1. pp. 753 -810, 2020. doi: 10.1007/s1046 2- 018-09676-2

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    Genetic Algorithms and Adaptation,

    J.H. Holland., “Genetic Algorithms and Adaptation,” Adaptive Control of Ill -Defined Systems. NATO Conference Series ., vol. 16, pp. 317–333, 1984. doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8941-5_21

    1984 doi

  6. [14]

    Genetic algorithms in machine learn ing,

    J. Shapiro, “Genetic algorithms in machine learn ing,” Machine Learning and Its Applications, vol. 2049, pp. 146 –168, 2001, doi: 10.1007/3-540-44673-7_7

    2001 doi

  7. [15]

    Particle Swarm Optimisation,

    J. Kennedy and E. Russell, “Particle Swarm Optimisation,” in Proceedings of ICNN’95 - International Conference on Neural Networks, pp. 1942–1948. 1995, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-61111-8_2

    1942 doi

  8. [17]

    Optimization by Simulated Annealing,

    S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt, and M. P. Vecchi, “Optimization by Simulated Annealing,” Sci. 220(4598), vol. 220, no. 4598, pp. 671 – 17 680, 1983, doi: 10.1126/science.220.4598.671

    1983 doi

  9. [18]

    A New Heuristic Optimization Algorithm: Harmony Search,

    Z. W. Geem, J. H. Kim, and G. V. Loganathan, “A New Heuristic Optimization Algorithm: Harmony Search,” Simulation, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 60–68, 2001, doi: 10.1201/b18469-4

    2001 doi

  10. [19]

    Firefly algorithms for multimodal optimization,

    X. S. Yang, “Firefly algorithms for multimodal optimization,” Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. (including Subser. Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. Lect. Notes Bioinformatics) , vol. 5792, pp. 169 –178, 2009, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-04944-6_14

    2009 doi

  11. [20]

    No Free Lunch Theorems for Optimization,

    D. H. Wolpert and Macready William G., “No Free Lunch Theorems for Optimization,” IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 67– 81, 1997. doi: 10.1109/4235.585893

    1997

  12. [21]

    β -Hill climbing: an e xploratory local search,

    M. A. Al -Betar, “β -Hill climbing: an e xploratory local search,” Neural Comput. Appl. , vol. 28, no. s1, pp. 153 –168, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s00521-016-2328-2

    2017 doi

  13. [22]

    COVID -19 Optimizer Algorithm, Modeling and Controlling of Cor onavirus Distribution Process,

    E. Hosseini, K. Z. Ghafoor, A. S. Sadiq, M. Guizani, and A. Emrouznejad, “COVID -19 Optimizer Algorithm, Modeling and Controlling of Cor onavirus Distribution Process,” IEEE J. Biomed. Heal. Informatics , vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 2765 –2775, 2020, doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2020.3012487

    2020

  14. [23]

    The corona virus searc h optimizer for solving global and engineering optimization problems,

    K. Golalipour, I. F. Davoudkhani, S. Nasri, A. Naderipour, S. Mirjalili, A. Y. Abdelaziz., “The corona virus searc h optimizer for solving global and engineering optimization problems,” Alexandria Eng. J. , vol. 78, no. July, pp. 614 –642, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2023.07.066

    2023 doi

  15. [24]

    The Metropolis – Hastings Algorithm,

    C. P. Robert, “The Metropolis – Hastings Algorithm,” Monte Carlo Statistical Methods, pp. 2 31–283, 2015, doi.org/10.1007/978 -1- 4757-3071-5_6

    2015 doi

  16. [25]

    Ant Colony Optimization: A New Meta-Heuristic,

    M. Dorigo and D. C. Gianni, “Ant Colony Optimization: A New Meta-Heuristic,” Proceedings of the 1999 congress on evolutionary computation-CEC99 (Cat. No. 99TH8406) . pp. 1470 –1477, 1992, doi: 10.1109/CEC.1999.782657

    1999

  17. [26]

    Cuckoo search algorithm: A metaheuristic approach to solve structural optimization problems,

    A. H. Gandomi, X. S. Yang, and A. H. Alavi, “Cuckoo search algorithm: A metaheuristic approach to solve structural optimization problems,” Eng. Comput. , vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 17 –35, 2013, doi: 10.1007/s00366-011-0241-y

    2013 doi

  18. [27]

    Tabu Search,

    F. Glover and M. Laguna, “Tabu Search,” Handbook of Combinatorial Optimization, vol. 3, pp. 621 –757, 1998, doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-0303-9_33

    1998 doi

  19. [28]

    The Immune System, Adaptation, and Machine Learning,

    J. D. Farmer, N. H. Packard, and A. S. Perelson, “The Immune System, Adaptation, and Machine Learning,” Phys. D, vol.22 no. 1-3 pp. 187–204, 1986, doi:dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-2789(86)90240-X

    1986 doi

  20. [29]

    Engineering optimizations via nature -inspired virtual bee algorithms,

    X. S. Yang, “Engineering optimizations via nature -inspired virtual bee algorithms,” Lect. Notes Comput. Sci., vol. 3562, no. 2, pp. 317– 323, 2005, doi: 10.1007/11499305_33

    2005 doi

  21. [30]

    An Idea Based on Honey Bee Swarm for Numerical Optimization,

    D. Karaboga, “An Idea Based on Honey Bee Swarm for Numerical Optimization,” Tech. report-tr06, Erciyes Univ. Eng. Fac. Comput. Eng. Dep., vol.200, pp. 1–10, 2005, doi: doi=10.1.1.714.4934

    2005

  22. [31]

    Bat algorithm: A novel approach for global engineering optimization,

    X. S. Yang and A. H. Gandomi, “Bat algorithm: A novel approach for global engineering optimization,” Eng. Comput. (Swansea, Wales), vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 464 –483, 2012, doi: 10.1108/02644401211235834

    2012 doi

  23. [32]

    Spider Monkey Optimization algorithm for numerical optimizati on,

    J. C. Bansal, H. Sharma, S. S. Jadon, and M. Clerc, “Spider Monkey Optimization algorithm for numerical optimizati on,” Memetic Comput., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 31 –47, 2014, doi: 10.1007/s12293 -013- 0128-0

    2014 doi

  24. [33]

    Ageist Spider Monkey Optimization algorithm,

    A. Sharma, A. Sharma, B. K. Panigrahi, D. Kiran, and R. Kumar, “Ageist Spider Monkey Optimization algorithm,” Swarm Evol. Comput.,vol. 28, pp. 58–77, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.swevo.2016.01.002

    2016 doi

  25. [34]

    Application of an improved spider monkey optimization algorithm for component assignment problem in PCB assembly,

    Z. Wang, J. Mumtaz, L. Zhang, and L. Yue, “Application of an improved spider monkey optimization algorithm for component assignment problem in PCB assembly,” Procedia CIRP, vol. 83, pp. 266–271, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2019.04.075

    2019 doi

  26. [35]

    Elephant Herding Optimization,

    G. G. Wang, S. Deb, and L. D. S. Coelho, “Elephant Herding Optimization,” Proc. - 2015 3rd Int. Symp. Comput. Bus. Intell. ISCBI 2015, pp. 1–5, 2016, doi: 10.1109/ISCBI.2015.8

    2015 doi

  27. [36]

    A novel metaheuristic for continuous optimization problems: Virus optimization algorithm,

    Y. C. Liang and J. R. Cuevas Juarez, “A novel metaheuristic for continuous optimization problems: Virus optimization algorithm,” Eng. Optim. , vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 73 –93, 2016, doi: 10.1080/0305215X.2014.994868

    2016

  28. [37]

    A self -adaptive virus optimization algorithm for continuous op timization problems

    Y.C. Liang, and J. R. Cuevas Juarez, “A self -adaptive virus optimization algorithm for continuous op timization problems”, Soft Comput, vol. 24, pp 13147–13166, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s00500 -020- 04730-0

    2020 doi

  29. [38]

    Corona virus optimization (CVO): a novel optimization algorithm inspired from the Corona virus pandemic,

    A. Salehan and A. Deldari, “Corona virus optimization (CVO): a novel optimization algorithm inspired from the Corona virus pandemic,” J. Supercomput., vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 5712 –5743, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11227-021-04100-z

    2022 doi

  30. [39]

    Optimal coronavirus optimization algorithm based pid controller for high performance brushless dc motor,

    M. A. Shamseldin, “Optimal coronavirus optimization algorithm based pid controller for high performance brushless dc motor,” Algorithms, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 1-17, 2021, doi: 10.3390/a14070193

    2021 doi

  31. [40]

    Salp Swarm Algorithm: A bio-inspired optimizer for engineering design problems,

    S. Mirjalili, A. H. Gandomi, S. Z. Mirjalili, S. Saremi, H. Faris, and S. M. Mirjalili, “Salp Swarm Algorithm: A bio-inspired optimizer for engineering design problems,” Adv. Eng. Softw., vol. 114, pp. 163 – 191, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2017.07.002

    2017 doi

  32. [41]

    Butterfly optimization algorithm: a novel approach for global optimization,

    S. Arora and S. Singh, “Butterfly optimization algorithm: a novel approach for global optimization,” Soft Comput., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 715–734, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s00500-018-3102-4

    2019 doi

  33. [42]

    The Sailfish Optimizer: A novel nature -inspired metaheuristic algorithm for solving constrained engineering optimization problems,

    S. Shadravan, H. R. Naji, and V. K. Bardsiri, “The Sailfish Optimizer: A novel nature -inspired metaheuristic algorithm for solving constrained engineering optimization problems,” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 20 –34, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2019.01.001

    2019 doi

  34. [43]

    Black Widow Optimization Algorithm: A novel meta-heuristic approach for solving engineering optimization problems,

    V. Hayyolalam and A. A. Pourhaji Kazem, “Black Widow Optimization Algorithm: A novel meta-heuristic approach for solving engineering optimization problems,” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 1-28, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2019.103249

    2020

  35. [44]

    A novel swarm intelligence optimization approach: sparrow search algorithm,

    J. Xue and B. Shen, “A novel swarm intelligence optimization approach: sparrow search algorithm,” Syst. Sci. Control Eng., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 22–34, 2020, doi: 10.1080/21642583.2019.1708830

    2020

  36. [45]

    Botox Optimization Algorithm: A New Human -Based Metaheuristic Algorithm for Solving Optimization Problems,

    M. Hubálovská, Š. Hubálovský, and P. Trojovský, “Botox Optimization Algorithm: A New Human -Based Metaheuristic Algorithm for Solving Optimization Problems,” Biomimetics, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 1-41, 2024, doi: 10.3390/biomimetics9030137

    2024 doi

  37. [46]

    Pufferfish Optimization Algorithm: A New Bio -Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithm for Solving Optimization Problems,

    O. Al -Baik, S. Alomari, O. Alssayed, S. Gochhait, I. Leonova,U. Dutta, O. P. Malik, Z. Montazeri, M. Dehghani, “Pufferfish Optimization Algorithm: A New Bio -Inspired Metaheuristic Algorithm for Solving Optimization Problems,” Biomimetics, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1-54, 2024, doi: ...

    2024 doi

  38. [48]

    Novel COVID -19 Based Optimization Algorithm (C - 19BOA) for Performance Improvement of Power Systems,

    S. Safiullah, A. Rahman, S. A. Lone, S. M. S. Hussain, and T. S. Ustun, “Novel COVID -19 Based Optimization Algorithm (C - 19BOA) for Performance Improvement of Power Systems,” Sustain., vol. 14, no. 21, pp. 1–27, 2022, doi: 10.3390/su142114287

    2022 doi

  39. [49]

    MOCOVIDOA: a novel multi -objective coronavirus disease optimization algorithm for solving multi -objective optimization problems,

    A. M. Khalid, H. M. Hamza, S. Mirjalili, and K. M. Hosny, “MOCOVIDOA: a novel multi -objective coronavirus disease optimization algorithm for solving multi -objective optimization problems,” Neural Comput. Appl., vol. 35, no. 23, pp. 17319–17347, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s00521-023-08587-w

    2023 doi

  40. [50]

    A comprehensive evaluation of Marine predator chaotic algorithm for feature selection of COVID-19,

    V. A. Akash Saxena, Siddharth Singh Chouhan , Rabia Musheer Aziz, “A comprehensive evaluation of Marine predator chaotic algorithm for feature selection of COVID-19,” Evol. Syst., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2024, doi: doi.org/10.1007/s12530-023-09557-2

    2024 doi

  41. [51]

    MCHIAO: a modified coronavirus herd immunity -Aquila optimization algorithm based on chaotic behavior for solvin g engineering problems,

    H. Selim, A. Y. Haikal, L. M. Labib, and M. M. Saafan, "MCHIAO: a modified coronavirus herd immunity -Aquila optimization algorithm based on chaotic behavior for solvin g engineering problems," Neural Comput. & Applic., vol. 1, no .4, pp. 1-85, 2024. doi: 10.1007/s00521-024-09533-0

    2024 doi

  42. [52]

    Coronavirus Mask Protection Algorithm: A New Bio - inspired Opti mization Algorithm and Its Applications,

    Y. Yuan, Q. Shen, S. Wang, J. Ren, D. Yang, Q. Yang, J. Fan, and Mu, X, “Coronavirus Mask Protection Algorithm: A New Bio - inspired Opti mization Algorithm and Its Applications,” J. Bionic Eng., vol. 20, no. 4, pp.1747 -1765, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s42235-023- 00359-5

    2023 doi

  43. [53]

    Ship Rescue Optimization: A New Metaheuristic Algorithm for Solving Engineering Problems,

    S. C. Chu, T. T. Wang, A. R. Yildiz, and J. S. Pan, “Ship Rescue Optimization: A New Metaheuristic Algorithm for Solving Engineering Problems,” J. Internet Technol., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 61 – 78, 2024, doi: 10.53106/160792642024012501006

    2024 doi

  44. [54]

    GBRUN: A Gradient Search-based Binary Runge Kutta Optimizer for Feature Selection,

    Z. C. Dou, S. C. Chu, Z. Zhuang, A. R. Yildiz, and J. S. Pan, “GBRUN: A Gradient Search-based Binary Runge Kutta Optimizer for Feature Selection,” J. Internet Technol., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 341 – 353, 2024, doi: 10.53106/160792642024052503001

    2024 doi

  45. [55]

    Deep Learning 18 applications for COVID -19,

    C. Shorten, T. M. Khoshgoftaar, and B. Furht, “Deep Learning 18 applications for COVID -19,” J. Big Data , vol. 8, no. 1, pp.1 -54, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s40537-020-00392-9

    2021 doi

  46. [56]

    COVID Live - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer

    “COVID Live - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer.” https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ (accessed May 07, 2024)

    2024

  47. [57]

    Coronavirus vs. SARS: How Do They Differ?

    “Coronavirus vs. SARS: How Do They Differ?” https://www.healthline.com/health/coronavirus-vs-sars#covid-19- vs-sars (accessed May 07, 2024)

    2024

  48. [58]

    The efficacy of social distance and ventilation effectiveness in preventing COVID-19 transmission,

    C. Sun and Z. Zhai, “The efficacy of social distance and ventilation effectiveness in preventing COVID-19 transmission,” Sustain. Cities Soc., vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 1-10, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2020.102390

    2020

  49. [59]

    Coronavirus Graphs: Worldwide Cases and Deaths - Worldometer

    “Coronavirus Graphs: Worldwide Cases and Deaths - Worldometer.”https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/worldwi de-graphs/ (accessed May 07, 2024)

    2024

  50. [60]

    The reproductive number of COVID -19 is higher compared to SARS coronavirus,

    Y. Liu, A. A. Gayle, A. Wilder -Smith, and J. R ocklöv, “The reproductive number of COVID -19 is higher compared to SARS coronavirus,” J. Travel Med. , vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 1 –4, 2020, doi: 10.1093/jtm/taaa021

    2020 doi

  51. [61]

    An improved butterfly optimization algorithm with chaos,

    S. Arora and S. Singh, “An improved butterfly optimization algorithm with chaos,” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 1079– 1088, 2017, doi: 10.3233/JIFS-16798

    2017 doi

  52. [62]

    Improved grasshopper optimization algorithm using opposition -based learning,

    A. A. Ewees, M. Abd Elaziz, and E. H. Houssein, “Improved grasshopper optimization algorithm using opposition -based learning,” Expert Syst. Appl. , vol. 112, pp. 156 –172, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2018.06.023

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.