MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012114154 · doi:10.1109/coginf.2011.6016145

Towards agent Swarm Optimization

2011· article· en· W2012114154 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 institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle swarm optimizationComputer scienceMathematical optimizationPosition (finance)Measure (data warehouse)Multi-swarm optimizationSwarm behaviourSituatedArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmMathematicsData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines particles in Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) in terms of situated agents to improve control of the long term behaviour of particles as required for cognitive machines. In PSO, the particles lack goals and temporal knowledge for personal/global best solutions, thus many of the decisions for advancing the position of the particle diverge away from the solution causing the algorithm to take longer as the particles return to their intended path. This paper proposes novel modifications to the standard PSO algorithm to incorporate self-adjusting temporal knowledge to help guide the particles towards the optimal solution faster. The temporal knowledge is incorporated as a weighted sum of L previous steps taken by the particle, where L is automatically adjusted to maintain a certain multiscale measure that satisfies a balance between exploration and seeking the goal. Additional improvements based on the dynamics of the particle's behaviour are described that would allow for real-time predicting of parameters.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.211 · 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