Statistical Analysis of Computational Intelligence Algorithms on a Multi-Objective Filter Design Problem
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 chapter presents the application of a comprehensive statistical analysis for both algorithmic performance comparison and optimal parameter estimation on a multi-objective digital signal processing problem. The problem of designing optimum digital finite impulse response (FIR) filters with the simultaneous approximation of the filter magnitude and phase is posed as a multi- objective optimization problem. Several computational-intelligence-based algorithms for solving this particular optimization problem are presented: genetic algorithms (GA), particle swarm optimization (PSO) and simulated annealing (SA) with multi-objective scalarization methods. Algorithms with Pareto sampling methods, namely non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGA-II) and multi-objective simulated annealing (MOSA) are also applied as a way of dealing with multi-objective optimization. Instead of using a process of trial and error, a statistical exploratory analysis is used to estimate optimal parameters. A comprehensive statistical comparison of the applied algorithms is addressed, which indicates a particularly strong performance of NSGA-II and pure GA with weighting scalarization.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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