Data for a meta-analysis of the adaptive layer in adaptive large neighborhood search
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Meta-analysis, a systematic statistical examination that combines the results of several independent studies, has the potential of obtaining problem- and implementation-independent knowledge and understanding of metaheuristic algorithms, but has not yet been applied in the domain of operations research. To illustrate the procedure, we carried out a meta-analysis of the adaptive layer in adaptive large neighborhood search (ALNS). Although ALNS has been widely used to solve a broad range of problems, it has not yet been established whether or not adaptiveness actually contributes to the performance of an ALNS algorithm. A total of 134 studies were identified through Google Scholar or personal e-mail correspondence with researchers in the domain, 63 of which fit a set of predefined eligibility criteria. The results for 25 different implementations of ALNS solving a variety of problems were collected and analyzed using a random effects model. This dataset contains a detailed comparison of ALNS with the non-adaptive variant per study and per instance, together with the meta-analysis summary results. The data enable to replicate the analysis, to evaluate the algorithms using other metrics, to revisit the importance of ALNS adaptive layer if results from more studies become available, or to simply consult the ready-to-use formulas in the summary file to carry out a meta-analysis of any research question. The individual studies, the meta-analysis and its results are described and interpreted in detail in Renata Turkeš, Kenneth Sörensen, Lars Magnus Hvattum, Meta-analysis of Metaheuristics: Quantifying the Effect of Adaptiveness in Adaptive Large Neighborhood Search, in the European Journal of Operational Research.
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 | 0.028 | 0.180 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.006 |
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".