Testing evolutionary algorithms for optimization of water distribution networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Water distribution networks (WDNs) are one of the most important elements of urban infrastructure and require large investment for construction. Design of WDNs is classified as a large combinatorial discrete nonlinear optimization problem. The main concerns associated with the optimization of such networks are the nonlinearity of the discharge-head loss relationships for pipes and the discrete nature of pipe sizes. Due to these issues, this problem is widely considered to be a benchmark problem for testing and evaluating the performance of nonlinear and heuristic optimization algorithms. This paper compares different techniques, all based on evolutionary algorithms (EAs), which yield optimal solutions for least-cost design of WDNs. All of these algorithms search for the global optimum starting from populations of solutions, rather than from a single solution, as in Newton-based search methods. They use different operators to improve the performance of many solutions over repeated iterations. Ten EAs, four of them for the first time, are applied to the design of three networks and their performance in terms of the least cost, under different stopping criteria, are evaluated. Statistical information for 20 executions of the ten algorithms is summarized, and Friedman tests are conducted. Results show that, for the two-loop benchmark network, the particle swarm optimization gravitational search and biology and bioinformatics global optimization algorithms efficiently converge to the global optimum, but perform poorly for large networks. In contrast, given a sufficient number of function evaluations, the covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy and soccer league competition algorithm consistently converge to the global optimum, for large networks.
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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".