Toward effective initialization for large-scale search spaces
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
Abstract: Nowadays, optimization problems with a few thousands of variables become more common. Population-based algorithms, such as Differential Evolution (DE), Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), Genetic Algorithms (GAs), and Evolutionary Strategies (ES) are commonly used approaches to solve complex large-scale problems from science and engineering. These approaches all work with a population of candidate solutions. On the other hand, for high-dimensional problems, no matter what is the individuals ’ distribution, the population is highly sparse. Therefore, intelligent employment of individual candidates can play a crucial role to find optimal solu-tion(s) faster. The most majority of population-based algorithms utilize pseudo-random population initialization when there is no a priori knowledge about the solution. In this paper, a center-based population initialization is proposed and investigated on seven benchmark functions. The obtained results are compared with the results of Normal, Pseudo Random, and Latin Hypercube population initialization schemes. Furthermore, the advantages of the proposed center-based sampling method are investigated by a mathematical proof and also Monte Carlo (simulation) method. The detailed experimental verifications are provided for problems with 50, 500, and 1000 dimensions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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