Improving firefly algorithm performance using fuzzy logic
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
Exploration and exploitation are two strategies used to search the problem space in Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs). To significantly increase the performance of these optimization techniques in terms of the solution optimality is to strike the right balance between exploration and exploitation. Firefly is one of the most favored EAs. In this study, we introduce an entire fuzzy system to tune dynamically the firefly parameters in order to keep the exploration and exploitation in balance in each of the searching steps. A serious concern of EAs is to be stuck in local optimum solutions. The proposed fuzzy controller helps the firefly algorithm to converge to the optimal solution and escape from local optimums. To evaluate the efficiency of the fuzzy-based firefly algorithm, we conduct experiments on a set of high dimensional benchmark functions. The goal here is to compare the new firefly method with the standard firefly and well-known nature-inspired optimization algorithms. The results of the experiments show the superiority of the proposed Fuzzy firefly algorithm over the standard one.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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