MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027723026 · doi:10.1117/12.542156

Self-adaptive parameters in genetic algorithms

2004· article· en· W2027723026 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

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAlgorithmGenetic algorithmQuality control and genetic algorithmsContext (archaeology)Range (aeronautics)Set (abstract data type)ChromosomeResolution (logic)Artificial intelligenceMeta-optimizationMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic algorithms are powerful search algorithms that can be applied to a wide range of problems. Generally, parameter setting is accomplished prior to running a Genetic Algorithm (GA) and this setting remains unchanged during execution. The problem of interest to us here is the self-adaptive parameters adjustment of a GA. In this research, we propose an approach in which the control of a genetic algorithm’s parameters can be encoded within the chromosome of each individual. The parameters’ values are entirely dependent on the evolution mechanism and on the problem context. Our preliminary results show that a GA is able to learn and evaluate the quality of self-set parameters according to their degree of contribution to the resolution of the problem. These results are indicative of a promising approach to the development of GAs with self-adaptive parameter settings that do not require the user to pre-adjust parameters at the outset.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0020.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.229 · 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