# A Prescription of Methodological Guidelines for Comparing Bio-inspired Optimization Algorithms

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.09969 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.09969/

## Key facts

- Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 19 Apr 2020.

## Built on by (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Performance assessment and exhaustive listing of 500+ nature inspired metaheuristic algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09479/) (2022)
- [The Paradox of Success in Evolutionary and Bioinspired Optimization: Revisiting Critical Issues, Key Studies, and Methodological Pathways](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.07515/) (2025)
- [Performance Comparison of Surrogate-Assisted Evolutionary Algorithms on Computational Fluid Dynamics Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.16455/) (2024)
- [Are metaheuristics worth it? A computational comparison between nature-inspired and deterministic techniques on black-box optimization problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.06875/) (2022)
- [Iterated Local Search with Linkage Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.01583/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Bio-inspired optimization (including Evolutionary Computation and Swarm Intelligence) is a growing research topic with many competitive bio-inspired algorithms being proposed every year. In such an active area, preparing a successful proposal of a new bio-inspired algorithm is not an easy task. Given the maturity of this research field, proposing a new optimization technique with innovative elements is no longer enough. Apart from the novelty, results reported by the authors should be proven to achieve a significant advance over previous outcomes from the state of the art. Unfortunately, not all new proposals deal with this requirement properly. Some of them fail to select appropriate benchmarks or reference algorithms to compare with. In other cases, the validation process carried out is not defined in a principled way (or is even not done at all). Consequently, the significance of the results presented in such studies cannot be guaranteed. In this work we review several recommendations in the literature and propose methodological guidelines to prepare a successful proposal, taking all these issues into account. We expect these guidelines to be useful not only for authors, but also for reviewers and editors along their assessment of new contributions to the field.