A Promotive Particle Swarm Optimizer With Double Hierarchical Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, a novel promotive particle swarm optimizer with double hierarchical structures is proposed. It is inspired by successful mechanisms present in social and biological systems to make particles compete fairly. In the proposed method, the swarm is first divided into multiple independent subpopulations organized in a hierarchical promotion structure, which protects subpopulation at each hierarchy to search for the optima in parallel. A unidirectional communication strategy and a promotion operator are further implemented to allow excellent particles to be promoted from low-hierarchy subpopulations to high-hierarchy subpopulations. Furthermore, for the internal competition within each subpopulation of the hierarchical promotion structure, a hierarchical multiscale optimum controlled by a tiered architecture of particles is constructed for particles, in which each particle can synthesize a set of optima of its different scales. The hierarchical promotion structure can protect particles that just fly to promising regions and have low fitness from competing with the entire swarm. Also, the double hierarchical structures increase the diversity of searching. Numerical experiments and statistical analysis of results reported on 30 benchmark problems show that the proposed method improves the accuracy and convergence speed especially in solving complex problems when compared with several variations of particle swarm optimization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".