MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012831795 · doi:10.1109/cec.2012.6256497

Particle swarm optimization with pbest crossover

2012· article· en· W2012831795 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 institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrossoverParticle swarm optimizationAttractorMulti-swarm optimizationPopulationMathematical optimizationComputer scienceMetaheuristicSwarm intelligenceLocal optimumSwarm behaviourGenetic algorithmArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Particle swarm optimization can be viewed as a system with two populations: a population of current positions and a population of personal best attractors. In genetic algorithms, crossover is applied after selection - the goal is to create a new offspring solution using components from the best available solutions. In a particle swarm, the best available solutions are in the population of personal best attractors. Compared to standard particle swarm optimization, a modified version which periodically creates particle positions by crossing the personal best positions can achieve large improvements. These improvements are most consistent on multi-modal search spaces where the new crossover solutions may help the search process escape from local optima.

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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.252 · 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