MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175206867 · doi:10.22266/ijies2021.0831.34

Mixed Best Members Based Optimizer for Solving Various Optimization Problems

2021· article· en· W3175206867 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

VenueInternational journal of intelligent engineering and systems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical optimizationComputer scienceParticle swarm optimizationMeta-optimizationOptimization problemPopulationMulti-swarm optimizationDerivative-free optimizationContinuous optimizationSet (abstract data type)Test functions for optimizationMetaheuristicAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous designed optimization problems in different disciplines of science should be solved using appropriate techniques. population based optimization algorithms are one of the powerful tools in solving optimization problems. The innovation of this paper is to present a new optimization algorithm called Mixed Best Members Based Optimizer (MBMBO) that can be used to solve various optimization problems. The main idea in designing the proposed MBMBO algorithm is to create a mixed member of several top members of the population in order to guide and update the algorithm population. The main feature and advantage of the MBMBO is the lack of control parameters. Therefore, the proposed MBMBO does not need to adjust the parameter. The various steps of the MBMBO are described and then mathematically modeled for implementation in solving optimization problems. The performance of the MBMBO in solving optimization problems is evaluated on a set of twenty-three standard objective functions. These objective functions are of three different types, including seven unimodal objective functions, six high dimensional multi-model objective functions, and ten fixed dimensional multi-model objective functions. The results of evaluation of single-model objective functions indicate the high exploitation power and also the results of evaluation of multi-model objective functions indicate the high exploration power of the proposed MBMBO algorithm. Also, the results obtained from the simulation of the MBMBO are compared with the results of eight other well-known optimization algorithms including Genetic Algorithm (GA), Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), Gravitational Search Algorithm (GSA), Teaching Learning-Based Optimization (TLBO), Gray Wolf Optimizer (GWO), Emperor Penguin Optimizer (EPO), Hide Objects Game Optimization (HOGO), and Shell Game Optimization (SGO). The results of optimizing the objective functions of unimodal and multi-modal types using MBMBO show the acceptable ability of the proposed algorithm to provide suitable solutions. Comparison of the simulation results shows that the proposed MBMBO is much more competitive than the other eight optimization algorithms.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.235 · 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