MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157833270 · doi:10.1109/cec.2007.4424748

Quasi-oppositional Differential Evolution

2007· article· en· W2157833270 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
KeywordsOdeInitializationDifferential evolutionBenchmark (surveying)Applied mathematicsComputer scienceTest suiteSuitePopulationAlgorithmMathematical optimizationMathematicsTest caseMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, an enhanced version of the opposition-based differential evolution (ODE) is proposed. ODE utilizes opposite numbers in the population initialization and generation jumping to accelerate differential evolution (DE). Instead of opposite numbers, in this work, quasi opposite points are used. So, we call the new extension quasi- oppositional DE (QODE). The proposed mathematical proof shows that in a black-box optimization problem quasi- opposite points have a higher chance to be closer to the solution than opposite points. A test suite with 15 benchmark functions has been employed to compare performance of DE, ODE, and QODE experimentally. Results confirm that QODE performs better than ODE and DE in overall. Details for the proposed approach and the conducted experiments are provided.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.270 · 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