A Novel Center-based Differential Evolution Algorithm
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
Differential Evolution (DE) algorithm has been shown notable performance in solving complex optimization problems. In recent years, some variants of the DE algorithm have been proposed based on the concept of center-based sampling strategy. To the best of our knowledge, the related papers employed center-based sampling for population initialization or as the base vector in mutation operator. In fact, they were operation-level approaches applied during the optimization process, and none of them was about proposing a population-level approach to utilize center-based sampling to accelerate convergence rate of algorithms. This paper proposes a novel center-based sampling scheme for the DE algorithm that utilizes center-based sampling as a member of the population. In our scheme, one candidate solution is the center of the best candidate solutions, while other individuals in the population behave similarly to the standard DE algorithm. The center-based candidate solution is not updated using standard operators and is set to the center in each iteration. To validate our scheme, we benchmark our algorithm on CEC-2017 benchmark functions with three dimensions of 30, 50, and 100. Also, we design some experiments to analyze the behavior of the proposed center-based scheme. Our experiments demonstrate a significant improvement of the proposed algorithm on the majority of benchmark functions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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