Optimum Tracking with Evolution Strategies
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
Evolutionary algorithms are frequently applied to dynamic optimization problems in which the objective varies with time. It is desirable to gain an improved understanding of the influence of different genetic operators and of the parameters of a strategy on its tracking performance. An approach that has proven useful in the past is to mathematically analyze the strategy's behavior in simple, idealized environments. The present paper investigates the performance of a multiparent evolution strategy that employs cumulative step length adaptation for an optimization task in which the target moves linearly with uniform speed. Scaling laws that quite accurately describe the behavior of the strategy and that greatly contribute to its understanding are derived. It is shown that in contrast to previously obtained results for a randomly moving target, cumulative step length adaptation fails to achieve optimal step lengths if the target moves in a linear fashion. Implications for the choice of population size parameters are 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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