MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139894151 · doi:10.1109/cec.2011.5949948

Enhanced Differential Evolution using center-based sampling

2011· article· en· W2139894151 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 institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOdeDifferential evolutionBenchmark (surveying)Range (aeronautics)AlgorithmComputer scienceMathematical optimizationScale (ratio)Ordinary differential equationMathematicsDifferential equationApplied mathematicsMathematical analysisEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The classical Differential Evolution (DE) has showed to perform efficiently in solving both benchmark functions and real-world problems. However, DE, similar to other evolutionary algorithms deteriorate in performance during solving high-dimensional problems. Opposition-based Differential Evolution (ODE) was introduced and, in general, has shown better performance comparing to classical DE for solving large-scale problems. In this paper, we propose an enhancement to ODE in order to improve its ability to solve large-scale problems more effectively. The proposed modified version of ODE is called Center-Based Differential Evolution (CDE) which utilizes the exact algorithm of ODE except replacing of opposite points with center-based individuals. This paper compares DE and ODE with the proposed algorithm, CDE. Furthermore, CDE with dynamic range (CDE <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">d</sub> ) will be compared to CDE with fixed range (CDE <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">f</sub> ). Experimental verifications are conducted on seven well-known shifted large-scale benchmark functions for dimensions of 100 and 500, including detailed parameter analysis for CDE. The shifted version of the functions ensures there is no bias towards the center of search space, in favor of CDE algorithm. The results clearly show that the CDE outperforms DE and ODE during solving large-scale problems, and also clarifies the superiority of CDE <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">d</sub> to CDE <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">f</sub> .

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.198 · 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