MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

NichePSO and the Merging Subswarm Problem

2020· article· en· W3119250667 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLocal optimumComputer scienceParticle swarm optimizationMathematical optimizationMulti-swarm optimizationAlgorithm designMetaheuristicOptimization problemLocal search (optimization)AlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The NichePSO algorithm was the first particle swarm optimization algorithm to utilize parallel swarms as an approach to solve multimodal optimization problems. Despite its strong results over many years of research, the NichePSO algorithm has always suffered from a major fundamental issue: The NichePSO algorithm uses multiple smaller subswarms that each search independent sections of the search area, searching for the different optima across the problem landscape. However, each run often ends with a single large subswarm absorbing every other subswarm that has been created, losing track of many of the optima found. This paper analyzes the NichePSO algorithm in detail, and shows evidence that this problem is caused by the subswarm merging strategy being used. Alternative merging approaches are proposed and it is shown that they do not suffer from the same issue as the traditional algorithm.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it