Binary Spring Search Algorithm for Solving Various Optimization Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most powerful tools for solving optimization problems is optimization algorithms (inspired by nature) based on populations. These algorithms provide a solution to a problem by randomly searching in the search space. The design’s central idea is derived from various natural phenomena, the behavior and living conditions of living organisms, laws of physics, etc. A new population-based optimization algorithm called the Binary Spring Search Algorithm (BSSA) is introduced to solve optimization problems. BSSA is an algorithm based on a simulation of the famous Hooke’s law (physics) for the traditional weights and springs system. In this proposal, the population comprises weights that are connected by unique springs. The mathematical modeling of the proposed algorithm is presented to be used to achieve solutions to optimization problems. The results were thoroughly validated in different unimodal and multimodal functions; additionally, the BSSA was compared with high-performance algorithms: binary grasshopper optimization algorithm, binary dragonfly algorithm, binary bat algorithm, binary gravitational search algorithm, binary particle swarm optimization, and binary genetic algorithm. The results show the superiority of the BSSA. The results of the Friedman test corroborate that the BSSA is more competitive.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".