DM: Dehghani Method for Modifying Optimization Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent decades, many optimization algorithms have been proposed by researchers to solve optimization problems in various branches of science. Optimization algorithms are designed based on various phenomena in nature, the laws of physics, the rules of individual and group games, the behaviors of animals, plants and other living things. Implementation of optimization algorithms on some objective functions has been successful and in others has led to failure. Improving the optimization process and adding modification phases to the optimization algorithms can lead to more acceptable and appropriate solution. In this paper, a new method called Dehghani method (DM) is introduced to improve optimization algorithms. DM effects on the location of the best member of the population using information of population location. In fact, DM shows that all members of a population, even the worst one, can contribute to the development of the population. DM has been mathematically modeled and its effect has been investigated on several optimization algorithms including: genetic algorithm (GA), particle swarm optimization (PSO), gravitational search algorithm (GSA), teaching-learning-based optimization (TLBO), and grey wolf optimizer (GWO). In order to evaluate the ability of the proposed method to improve the performance of optimization algorithms, the mentioned algorithms have been implemented in both version of original and improved by DM on a set of twenty-three standard objective functions. The simulation results show that the modified optimization algorithms with DM provide more acceptable and competitive performance than the original versions in solving optimization problems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".