Investigation of differential evolution and particle swarm optimization in search performance
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
The purpose of this study is to clarify the search performance of differential evolution (DE) and particle swarm optimization (PSO) technologies for instinctively understanding the specificity of the used search methods. Due to achieve the task, here, the several search methods of both, i.e. DE/rand/1, DE/rand/2, DE/best/1, DE/best/2, the PSO, PSOIW, and CPSO, which are implemented in this paper. Therefore, many computer experiments are carried out for handling the given four benchmark problems. Through the analysis of the obtained experimental data, the detail search performance and characteristics of them are observed and compared, respectively. From the obtained results, it is found that the search methods of DE/best/1 and the PSO relatively have better search performance. Based on the findings and know-how, they can provide some important reference and key hint for encouraging development and improvement of both DE and PSO technologies in the near future. And as the applicative examples, the PSO is used to handle typical 2-bit and 3-bit parity problems for pattern classification.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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