ArticleBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
A Tri-Direction Guided Moss Growth Optimizer with Adaptive Differential Evolution for Engineering Design Problems.
Article in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article proposes an improved Moss Growth Optimization (IMGO) algorithm to address the drawbacks of imbalanced exploration and exploitation and susceptibility to local optima in the original MGO. IMGO integrates three-dimensional guidance, elite guidance, adaptive search, and adaptive adversarial learning to achieve a dynamic balance between global exploration and local development. IMGO is compared with eight metaheuristic algorithms on CEC2017 and CEC2022 benchmarks. Results show IMGO ranks first in 30D and 50D CEC2017 with scores of 49 and 64, surpassing second-ranked CFDA (87 and 81). For 20D CEC2022, IMGO takes first place with a score of 27, while original MGO scores 66 and ranks seventh. The Friedman test validates its strong robustness with a statistic of 1.6897, lower than CFDA's 3.0000. Furthermore, IMGO acquires the optimal average solutions for all six engineering design problems. Experiments verify that IMGO has comprehensive advantages in accuracy and robustness, providing a reliable method for complex optimization problems.
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.