Population-based coordinate descent algorithm with majority voting
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
Many real-world optimization problems belong to the class of expensive problems and the costly process of computing fitness value or gradient of the objective function may cause the failure of various optimization algorithms to solve them quickly. Because of the low computation and memory requirements of Coordinate Descent (CD) search methods they are suitable algorithms to optimize these problems. Despite the efficiency of CD methods, searching a large-scale search space just by using one candidate solution decreases the exploration capability of the algorithm. In this paper, a novel population-based version of the CD algorithm called Population-Based Coordinate Descent (PBCD) is proposed which is an efficacious method for tackling such problems using the collective intelligence and collaboration of the population. It takes advantage of three phases of locating the region of interest, folding the search space, and communication among the population members with majority voting to find more promising regions in the search space. As it shrinks the search space swiftly, it needs a low computational budget for finding the optimal value per coordinate and ultimately in overall. To investigate its performance, we benchmarked it on CEC-2017 test suite consisting of 29 low-scale problems with dimensions of 30, 50, and 100.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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