ArticleScientific reports2025
Enhanced crested porcupine optimizer for numerical optimization and wireless sensor network deployment.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Multi-Strategy Enhanced Crested Porcupine Optimizer with Targeted Defense Mechanism Improvement for Global Optimization.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Metaheuristic algorithms are widely used to address complex real-world optimization problems, but many existing algorithms face challenges such as slow convergence, low accuracy, and susceptibility to local optima. The newly proposed Crested Porcupine Optimizer (CPO), while demonstrating effectiveness across domains, still suffers from these limitations in practical applications, restricting its performance in solving complex optimization tasks like wireless sensor network (WSN) deployment. To address these shortcomings, this study aims to enhance CPO's overall performance by developing an improved version called the Enhanced Crested Porcupine Optimizer (ECPO). The methodology of ECPO integrates four key enhancement strategies: (1) Sobol sequences for population initialization, ensuring uniform distribution of initial solutions to boost global search capability; (2) a guided search strategy based on the global optimal solution, directing the algorithm toward optimal regions to reduce ineffective exploration; (3) an adaptive Lévy flight search strategy, maintaining population diversity and improving convergence accuracy; and (4) a centroid-based reverse learning strategy for population updates, expanding search space coverage and accelerating convergence. The performance of ECPO was validated on four authoritative benchmark suites (CEC2014, CEC2017, CEC2020, CEC2022) by comparing it with classical algorithms (e.g., PSO, DE), recently proposed algorithms (e.g., BKA, SBOA), and CEC-winning algorithms (e.g., LSHADE, AGSK). Statistical results show ECPO outperformed most comparison algorithms in 93.81%, 93.33%, 75.71%, and 86.90% of tests on the four benchmarks, respectively, exhibiting significant advantages in convergence speed, accuracy, and stability. Additionally, when applied to WSN node deployment optimization, ECPO achieved a higher coverage rate (average 84.95%) and better robustness than competing algorithms, with more rational node distribution and minimal resource waste. These findings confirm that ECPO effectively overcomes the limitations of the original CPO and outperforms many state-of-the-art optimizers. As a high-performance metaheuristic algorithm, ECPO not only excels in numerical optimization but also demonstrates broad applicability in practical engineering problems like WSN deployment, providing a reliable tool for solving complex optimization challenges.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.