Designing Parallel Meta-Heuristic Methods
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
Meta-heuristics represent powerful tools for addressing hard combinatorial optimization problems. However, real life instances usually cannot be treated efficiently in “reasonable” computing times. Moreover, a major issue in meta-heuristic design and calibration is to provide high performance solutions for a variety of problems. Parallel meta-heuristics aim to address both issues. The objective of this chapter is to present a state-of-the-art survey of the main parallelization ideas and strategies, and to discuss general design principles applicable to all meta-heuristic classes. To achieve this goal, the authors explain various paradigms related to parallel meta-heuristic development, where communications, synchronization, and control aspects are the most relevant. They also discuss implementation issues pointing out the characteristics of shared and distributed memory multiprocessors as target architectures. All these topics are illustrated by the examples from recent literature related to the parallelization of various meta-heuristic methods. Here, the authors focus on Variable Neighborhood Search and Bee Colony Optimization.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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