A Spring Search Algorithm Applied to Engineering Optimization Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At present, optimization algorithms are used extensively. One particular type of such algorithms includes random-based heuristic population optimization algorithms, which may be created by modeling scientific phenomena, like, for example, physical processes. The present article proposes a novel optimization algorithm based on Hooke’s law, called the spring search algorithm (SSA), which aims to solve single-objective constrained optimization problems. In the SSA, search agents are weights joined through springs, which, as Hooke’s law states, possess a force that corresponds to its length. The mathematics behind the algorithm are presented in the text. In order to test its functionality, it is executed on 38 established benchmark test functions and weighed against eight other optimization algorithms: a genetic algorithm (GA), a gravitational search algorithm (GSA), a grasshopper optimization algorithm (GOA), particle swarm optimization (PSO), teaching–learning-based optimization (TLBO), a grey wolf optimizer (GWO), a spotted hyena optimizer (SHO), as well as an emperor penguin optimizer (EPO). To test the SSA’s usability, it is employed on five engineering optimization problems. The SSA delivered better fitting results than the other algorithms in unimodal objective function, multimodal objective functions, CEC 2015, in addition to the optimization problems in engineering.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".