A Collective Intelligence Strategy for Enhancing Population-based optimization Algorithms
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
Population-based algorithms are a well-established category of metaheuristic optimization algorithms in which individuals collaborate with each other to find the optimal solution in a search space. During the search process, each individual provides a partial intelligence which can assist the population movement toward promising regions. In this paper, a dimension-wise strategy is proposed to collect the intelligence of whole population to generate a new trial candidate solution. For new individual, the value of each variable is calculated using the votes of a more-crowded cluster of individuals obtained on each dimension (one-dimensional clustering). Accordingly, a group of candidate solutions in the population collaborate to determine a variable value of new individual. Utilizing this strategy, collective intelligence (CI) aims the algorithm to find better candidate solutions. Since the proposed method keeps untouched all other parts of the algorithm, it can be used with any population-based algorithm. This paper presents the modification of two well-known population-based algorithms based on the proposed strategy in utilizing Collective Intelligence (CI), Differential Evolution (CIDE) and Particle Swarm optimization (CIPSO). In conducted experiments, two proposed algorithms are compared with classical version of DE and PSO on 30 functions of CEC2017 benchmark. The results indicate that the proposed method generates an individual with better objective function value than many of the individuals in the population which leads totally better results in overall.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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