MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588763176 · doi:10.1109/ssci.2016.7850253

Effects of centralized population initialization in differential evolution

2016· article· en· W2588763176 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 institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInitializationBenchmark (surveying)PopulationDifferential evolutionPopulation sizeComputer scienceMathematical optimizationConvergence (economics)CentroidAlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligenceDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Differential evolution (DE) is one of the highest performance, easy to implement, and low complexity population-based optimization algorithms. Population initialization plays an important role in finding better candidate solution and faster convergence of the population to a global optimum. It has been shown in the literature that large population sizes for large-scale problems necessarily does not show a statistically significant performance improvement over medium size population. In this paper, we emphasise on importance of population initialization and discuss effects of using centroid-based population initialization in DE, with focus on micro-DE (i.e. DE with small population size). Experimental results for high and low dimensional problems with small and standard population sizes on CEC Black-Box Optimization Benchmark problems 2015 (CEC-BBOB 2015) show centroid initialization can increase performance of DE algorithm, compared to the conventional initialization method.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.249 · 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