Centroid Opposition-Based Differential Evolution
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
The capabilities of evolutionary algorithms (EAs) in solving nonlinear and non-convex optimization problems are significant. Differential evolution (DE) is an effective population-based EA, which has emerged as very competitive. Since its inception in 1995, multiple variants of DE have been proposed with higher performance. Among these DE variants, opposition-based differential evolution (ODE) established a novel concept in which individuals must compete with theirs opposites in order to make an entry in the next generation. The generation of opposite points is based on the current extreme points (i.e., maximum and minimum) in the search space. This paper develops a new scheme that utilizes the centroid point of a population to calculate opposite individuals. The classical scheme of an opposite point is modified. Incorporating this new scheme into DE leads to an enhanced ODE that is identified as centroid opposition-based differential evolution (CODE). The accuracy of the CODE algorithm is comprehensively evaluated on well-known complex benchmark functions and compared with the performance of conventional DE, ODE, and other state-of-the-art algorithms. The results for CODE are found to be promising.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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