Dimension-Wise Particle Swarm Optimization: Evaluation and Comparative Analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article evaluates a recently introduced algorithm that adjusts each dimension in particle swarm optimization semi-independently and compares it with the traditional particle swarm optimization. In addition, the comparison is extended to differential evolution and genetic algorithm. This presented comparative study provides a clear exposition of the effects introduced by the proposed algorithm. Performance of all evaluated optimizers is evaluated based on how well they perform in finding the global minima of 24 multi-dimensional benchmark functions, each having 7, 14, or 21 dimensions. Each algorithm is put through a session of self-tuning with 100 iterations to ensure convergence of their respective optimization parameters. The results confirm that the new variant is a significant improvement over the traditional algorithm. It also obtained notably better results than differential evolution when applied to problems with high-dimensional spaces relative to the number of available particles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it