MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026243033 · doi:10.1260/1748-3018.9.2.143

Quantum-Behaved Particle Swarm Optimization with Novel Adaptive Strategies

2015· article· en· W2026243033 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

VenueJournal of Algorithms & Computational Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle swarm optimizationBenchmark (surveying)Multi-swarm optimizationPosition (finance)AttractorMetaheuristicMathematical optimizationSwarm behaviourComputer scienceSwarm intelligenceGlobal optimizationMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantum-behaved particle swarm optimization (QPSO), motivated by analysis from particle swarm optimization (PSO) and quantum mechanics, has shown excellent performance in finding the optimal solutions for many optimization problems. In QPSO, the mean best position, defined as the average of the personal best positions of all the particles in a swarm, is employed as a global attractor to attract the particles to search solutions globally. This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of the mean best position and proposes several novel adaptive strategies to determine the position. In particular, four variants of mean best position are proposed to serve as global attractors and the corresponding parameter selection methods are also provided. Empirical studies on a suite of well-known benchmark functions are undertaken in order to make an overall performance comparison among the proposed methods and other QPSO and PSO variants. The simulation results show that the proposed QPSO algorithm have some advantages over the original QPSO and other PSO algorithms.

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)0.001
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 score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.256 · 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