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

Self-adaptive parameters in genetic algorithms

2004· article· en· W2027723026 on OpenAlexaff
Éric Pellerin, Luc Pigeon, Sylvain Delisle

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207