MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164389725 · doi:10.1002/mma.8279

On the mean‐field limit for the consensus‐based optimization

2022· article· en· W3164389725 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiffusion and Search Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPacific Institute for the Mathematical SciencesUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsParticle swarm optimizationLimit (mathematics)Argument (complex analysis)Compact spaceMeasure (data warehouse)Particle systemMathematical optimizationMathematicsField (mathematics)Empirical measureOrder (exchange)Optimization problemApplied mathematicsStatistical physicsComputer scienceMathematical economicsPhysicsPure mathematicsMathematical analysisStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is concerned with the large particle limit for the consensus‐based optimization (CBO), which was postulated in the pioneering works by Carrillo, Pinnau, Totzeck and many others. In order to solve this open problem, we adapt a compactness argument by first proving the tightness of the empirical measures associated to the particle system and then verifying that the time marginal of the limit measure is the unique weak solution to the mean‐field CBO equation. Such results are further extended to the model of particle swarm optimization (PSO).

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.320 · 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