Hybrid genetic algorithms using quadratic local search operators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The paper aims to present a new methodology for hybrid genetic algorithms (GA) in the solution of electromagnetic optimization problems. Design/methodology/approach This methodology can be seen as a local search operator which uses local quadratic approximations for each objective and constraint function in the problem. In the local search phase, these approximations define an associated local search problem that is efficiently solved using a formulation based on linear matrix inequalities. Findings The paper illustrates the proposed methodology comparing the performance of the hybrid GA against the basic GA in two analytical problems and in the well‐known TEAM benchmark Problem 22. For the analytical problems, 30 independent runs for each algorithm were considered whereas for Problem 22, ten independent runs for each algorithm were taken. Research limitations/implications For the analytical problems, the hybrid GA enhanced both the convergence speed, in terms of the number of function evaluations, and the accuracy of the final result. For Problem 22, the hybrid GA was able to reach a better solution, with a better value of the standard deviation with less CPU time. Practical implications The paper could be useful both for device designers and researchers involved optimization in computational electromagnetics. Originality/value The hybrid GA proposed enhanced the convergence speed, in terms of the number of function evaluations, representing a faster and robust algorithm for practical optimization problems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".