Toward effective initialization for large-scale search spaces
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".