MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154369526 · doi:10.1109/cec.2006.1688554

Opposition-Based Differential Evolution Algorithms

2006· article· en· W2154369526 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 institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDifferential evolutionInitializationEvolutionary algorithmComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)PopulationEvolutionary computationSwarm intelligenceMathematical optimizationComputational intelligenceAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceCultural algorithmMachine learningOptimization problemParticle swarm optimizationMeta-optimizationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) are well-known optimization approaches to cope with non-linear, complex problems. These population-based algorithms, however, suffer from a general weakness; they are computationally expensive due to slow nature of the evolutionary process. This paper presents some novel schemes to accelerate convergence of evolutionary algorithms. The proposed schemes employ opposition-based learning for population initialization and also for generation jumping. In order to investigate the performance of the proposed schemes, Differential Evolution (DE), an efficient and robust optimization method, has been used. The main idea is general and applicable to other population-based algorithms such as Genetic algorithms, Swarm Intelligence, and Ant Colonies. A set of test functions including unimodal and multimodal benchmark functions is employed for experimental verification. The details of proposed schemes and also conducted experiments are given. The results are highly 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 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 score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.237 · 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