An implementation of metaheuristic algorithms for continuous optimization. Currently, the package contains the implementations of 21 algorithms, as follows: particle swarm optimization (Kennedy and Eberhart, 1995), ant lion optimizer (Mirjalili, 2015 <doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2015.01.010>), grey wolf optimizer (Mirjalili et al., 2014 <doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2013.12.007>), dragonfly algorithm (Mirjalili, 2015 <doi:10.1007/s00521-015-1920-1>), firefly algorithm (Yang, 2009 <doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04944-6_14>), genetic algorithm (Holland, 1992, ISBN:978-0262581110), grasshopper optimisation algorithm (Saremi et al., 2017 <doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2017.01.004>), harmony search algorithm (Mahdavi et al., 2007 <doi:10.1016/j.amc.2006.11.033>), moth flame optimizer (Mirjalili, 2015 <doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2015.07.006>, sine cosine algorithm (Mirjalili, 2016 <doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2015.12.022>),  whale optimization algorithm (Mirjalili and Lewis, 2016 <doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2016.01.008>), clonal selection algorithm (Castro, 2002 <doi:10.1109/TEVC.2002.1011539>), differential evolution (Das & Suganthan, 2011), shuffled frog leaping (Eusuff, Landsey & Pasha, 2006), cat swarm optimization (Chu et al., 2006), artificial bee colony algorithm (Karaboga & Akay, 2009), krill-herd algorithm (Gandomi & Alavi, 2012), cuckoo search (Yang & Deb, 2009), bat algorithm (Yang, 2012), gravitational based search (Rashedi et al., 2009) and black hole optimization (Hatamlou, 2013).

Assessment of inconsistency in meta-analysis by calculating the Decision Inconsistency index (DI) and the Across-Studies Inconsistency (ASI) index. These indices quantify inconsistency taking into account outcome-level decision thresholds.

An ensemble meta-prediction framework to integrate multiple regression 
    models into a current study. Gu, T., Taylor, J.M.G. and Mukherjee, B. (2020) 
    <arXiv:2010.09971>.
    A meta-analysis framework along with two weighted estimators as the ensemble 
    of empirical Bayes estimators, which combines the estimates from the different 
    external models. The proposed framework is flexible and robust in the ways 
    that (i) it is capable of incorporating external models that use a slightly 
    different set of covariates; (ii) it is able to identify the most relevant 
    external information and diminish the influence of information that is less 
    compatible with the internal data; and (iii) it nicely balances the bias-variance 
    trade-off while preserving the most efficiency gain. The proposed estimators 
    are more efficient than the naive analysis of the internal data and other 
    naive combinations of external estimators.