Cross Entropy Method Based Hybridization of Dynamic Group Optimization Algorithm
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
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.
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