Performance of Simulated Annealing, Tabu Search, and Evolutionary Algorithms forMulti-objective Network Partitioning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most real optimization problems often involve multiple objectives to optimize. In single-objective optimization there exists a global optimum, while in the multi-objective case no optimal solution is clearly defined but rather a set of solutions, so called Pareto-optimal set. Thus, the goal of multi-objective strategies is to obtain an approximation to this set. However, the majority of this kind of problem cannot be solved exactly as they have very large and highly complex search spaces. In recent years, meta-heuristics have become important tools for solving multi-objective problems encountered in industry as well as in the theoretical field. Thus far, there exist many comparative studies about the performance of evolutionary algorithms, but are few the papers dealing with non-evolutionary strategies. The goal of this paper is to analyze the performance of both paradigms in a realistic problem. In concrete, we have adapted five multi-objective meta-heuristics, based on Simulated Annealing, Tabu Search, and Evolutionary Methods, to solve the Network Partitioning Problem.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it