Chaotic Walk in Simulated Annealing Search Space for Task Allocation in a Multiprocessing System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes the application of chaos in large search space problems, and suggests that this represents the next evolutionary step in the development of adaptive and intelligent systems towards cognitive machines and systems. Three different versions of chaotic simulated annealing (XSA) were applied to combinatorial optimization problems in multiprocessor task allocation. Chaotic walks in the solution space were taken to search for the global optimum or “good enough” task-to-processor allocation solutions. Chaotic variables were generated to set the number of perturbations made in each iteration of a XSA algorithm. In addition, parameters of a chaotic variable generator were adjusted to create different chaotic distributions with which to search the solution space. The results show that the convergence rate of the XSA algorithm is faster than simulated annealing when the solutions are far apart in the solution space. In particular, the XSA algorithms found simulated annealing’s best result on average about 4 times faster than simulated annealing.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".