Comparison of Constraint-Handling Mechanisms for the (1,λ)-ES on a Simple Constrained Problem
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates constraint-handling techniques used in nonelitist single-parent evolution strategies for the problem of maximizing a linear function with a single linear constraint. Two repair mechanisms are considered, and the analytical results are compared to those of earlier repair approaches in the same fitness environment. The first algorithm variant applies reflection to initially infeasible candidate solutions, and the second repair method uses truncation to generate feasible solutions from infeasible ones. The distributions describing the strategies' one-generation behavior are calculated and used in a zeroth-order model for the steady state attained when operating with fixed step size. Considering cumulative step size adaptation, the qualitative differences in the behavior of the algorithm variants can be explained. The approach extends the theoretical knowledge of constraint-handling methods in the field of evolutionary computation and has implications for the design of constraint-handling techniques in connection with cumulative step size adaptation.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it