Cross Entropy Method Based Hybridization of Dynamic Group Optimization Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, a new algorithm named dynamic group optimization (DGO) has been proposed, which lends itself strongly to exploration and exploitation. Although DGO has demonstrated its efficacy in comparison to other classical optimization algorithms, DGO has two computational drawbacks. The first one is related to the two mutation operators of DGO, where they may decrease the diversity of the population, limiting the search ability. The second one is the homogeneity of the updated population information which is selected only from the companions in the same group. It may result in premature convergence and deteriorate the mutation operators. In order to deal with these two problems in this paper, a new hybridized algorithm is proposed, which combines the dynamic group optimization algorithm with the cross entropy method. The cross entropy method takes advantage of sampling the problem space by generating candidate solutions using the distribution, then it updates the distribution based on the better candidate solution discovered. The cross entropy operator does not only enlarge the promising search area, but it also guarantees that the new solution is taken from all the surrounding useful information into consideration. The proposed algorithm is tested on 23 up-to-date benchmark functions; the experimental results verify that the proposed algorithm over the other contemporary population-based swarming algorithms is more effective and efficient.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".