MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134788587 · doi:10.1109/sis.2007.368044

Applying Opposition-Based Ideas to the Ant Colony System

2007· article· en· W2134788587 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTravelling salesman problemAnt colony optimization algorithmsSynchronizingOpposition (politics)Computer scienceANTAnt colonyMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmMathematicsComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents several extensions to an algorithm in the family of ant colony optimization, the ant colony system. The proposed extensions are based on the idea of opposition and attempt to increase the exploration efficiency of the solution space. The modifications focus on the solution construction phase of the ant colony system. Three of the proposed methods work by pairing the ants and synchronizing their path selection. The two other approaches modify the decisions of the ants by using an opposite-pheromone content. Results on the application of these algorithms on travelling salesman problem instances demonstrate that the concept of opposition is not easily applied to the ant algorithm. Only one of the pheromone-based methods showed performance improvements that were statistically significant. The quality of the solutions increased and more optimal solutions were found. The other extensions showed no clear improvement. Further work must be conducted to explore the successful pheromone-based approach, as well as to determine if opposition should be applied to a different phase of the algorithm

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it