Using Genetic Algorithms to Design Experiments: A Review
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
Genetic algorithms (GAs) have been used in many disciplines to optimize solutions for a broad range of problems. In the last 20 years, the statistical literature has seen an increase in the use and study of this optimization algorithm for generating optimal designs in a diverse set of experimental settings. These efforts are due in part to an interest in implementing a novel methodology as well as the hope that careful application of elements of the GA framework to the unique aspects of a designed experiment problem might lead to an efficient means of finding improved or optimal designs. In this paper, we explore the merits of using this approach, some of the aspects of design that make it a unique application relative to other optimization scenarios, and discuss elements which should be considered for an effective implementation. We conclude that the current GA implementations can, but do not always, provide a competitive methodology to produce substantial gains over standard optimal design strategies. We consider both the probability of finding a globally optimal design as well as the computational efficiency of this approach. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it