Optimal parameter regions for particle swarm optimization algorithms
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
Particle swarm optimization (PSO) is a stochastic search algorithm based on the social dynamics of a flock of birds. The performance of the PSO algorithm is known to be sensitive to the values assigned to its control parameters. While many studies have provided reasonable ranges in which to initialize the parameters based on their long-term behaviours, such previous studies fail to quantify the empirical performance of parameter configurations across a wide variety of benchmark problems. This paper specifically address this issue by examining the performance of a set of 1012 parameter configurations of the PSO algorithm over a set of 22 benchmark problems using both the global-best and local-best topologies. Results indicate that, in general, parameter configurations which are within close proximity to the boundaries of the best-known theoretically-defined convergent region lead to better performance than configurations which are further away. Moreover, results indicate that neighbourhood topology plays a far more significant role than modality and separability when determining the regions in parameter space which perform well.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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