Investigation of differential evolution and particle swarm optimization in search performance
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".