MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1690153029 · doi:10.1109/cec.2004.1330836

An analysis of evolutionary gradient search

2004· article· en· W1690153029 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvolutionary computationEvolutionary algorithmEvolution strategyRandom searchComputer scienceFunction (biology)Human-based evolutionary computationEvolutionary programmingGenetic algorithmGradient methodCMA-ESMathematical optimizationMathematicsArtificial intelligenceInteractive evolutionary computationAlgorithmEvolutionary biologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evolution strategies and gradient strategies are two different approaches to continuous optimization. Salomon's evolutionary gradient search procedure is a hybrid strategy that obtains gradient estimates by borrowing the idea of random variations from evolutionary computation. The present paper applies successful tools and ideas from the theory of evolution strategies to the evolutionary gradient search framework. Performance and the influence of its parameters. Comparisons with the (/spl mu///spl mu/,/spl lambda/)-ES are presented, and the issue of genetic repair in evolutionary gradient search is discussed. The practically relevant problem of noisy objective function measurements is addressed, and recommendations with regard to the setting of strategy parameters are made.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.541
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it