A modified shuffled frog-leaping optimization algorithm: applications to project management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evolutionary algorithms, such as shuffled frog-leaping, are stochastic search methods that mimic natural biological evolution and/or the social behavior of species. Such algorithms have been developed to arrive at near-optimum solutions to complex and large-scale optimization problems which cannot be solved by gradient-based mathematical programming techniques. The shuffled frog-leaping algorithm draws its formulation from two other search techniques: the local search of the ‘particle swarm optimization’ technique; and the competitiveness mixing of information of the ‘shuffled complex evolution’ technique. A brief description of the original algorithm is presented along with a pseudocode and flowchart to facilitate its implementation. This paper then introduces a new search-acceleration parameter into the formulation of the original shuffled frog-leaping algorithm to create a modified form of the algorithm. A number of simulations are carried out for two continuous optimization problems (known as benchmark test problems) and two discrete optimization problems (large scale problems in the project management domain) to illustrate the positive impact of this new parameter on the performance of the shuffled frog-leaping algorithm. A range of ‘best’ usable values for the search-acceleration parameter is identified and discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".