Enhanced Firefly Algorithm Using Fuzzy Parameter Tuner
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
Exploitation and exploration are two main search strategies of every metaheuristic algorithm. However, the ratio between exploitation and exploration has a significant impact on the performance of these algorithms when dealing with optimization problems. In this study, we introduce an entire fuzzy system to tune efficiently and dynamically the firefly algorithm parameters in order to keep the exploration and exploitation in balance in each of the searching steps. This will prevent the firefly algorithm from being stuck in local optimal, a challenge issue in metaheuristic algorithms. To evaluate the quality of the solution returned by the fuzzy-based firefly algorithm, we conduct extensive experiments on a set of high and low dimensional benchmark functions as well as two constrained engineering problems. In this regard, we compare the improved firefly algorithm with the standard one and other famous metaheuristic algorithms. The experimental results demonstrate the superiority of the fuzzy-based firefly algorithm to standard firefly and also its comparability to other metaheuristic algorithms.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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