A self-feedback strategy differential evolution with fitness landscape analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differential evolution (DE) has been widely applied to complex global optimization problems. Different search strategies have been designed to find the optimum conditions in a fitness landscape. However, none of these strategies works well over all possible fitness landscapes. Since the fitness landscape associated with a complex global optimization problem usually consists of various local landscapes, each search strategy is efficient in a particular type of fitness landscape. A reasonable approach is to combine several search strategies and integrate their advantages to solve global optimization problems. This paper presents a new self-feedback strategy differential evolution (SFSDE) algorithm based on fitness landscape analysis of single-objective optimization problem. In the SFSDE algorithm, in the analysis of the fitness landscape features of fitness-distance correlation, a self-feedback operation is used to iteratively select and evaluate the mutation operators of the new SFSDE algorithm. Moreover, mixed strategies and self-feedback transfer are combined to design a more efficient DE algorithm and enhance the search range, convergence rate and solution accuracy. Finally, the proposed SFSDE algorithm is implemented to optimize soil water textures, and the experimental results show that the proposed SFSDE algorithm reduces the difficulty in estimating parameters, simplifies the solution process and provides a novel approach to calculate the parameters of the Van Genuchten equation. In addition, the proposed algorithm exhibits high accuracy and rapid convergence and can be widely used in the parameter estimation of such nonlinear optimization models.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".