Using Feedback Strategies in Simulated Annealing with Crystallization Heuristic and Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper represents how typical advanced engineering design can be structured using a set of parameters and objective functions corresponding to the nature of the problem. The set of parameters can be in different types, including integer, real, cyclic, combinatorial, interval, etc. Similarly, the objective function can be presented in various types including integer (discrete), float, and interval. The simulated annealing with crystallization heuristic can deal with all these combinations of parameters and objective functions when the crystallization heuristic presents a sensibility for real parameters. Herein, simulated annealing with the crystallization heuristic is enhanced by combining Bates and Gaussian distributions and by incorporating feedback strategies to emphasize exploration or refinement, or a combination of the two. The problems that are studied include solving an electrical impedance tomography problem with float parameters and a partially evaluated objective function represented by an interval requiring the solution of 32 sparse linear systems defined by the finite element method, as well as an airplane design problem with several parameters and constraints used to reduce the explored domain. The combination of the proposed feedback strategies and simulated annealing with the crystallization heuristic is compared with existing simulated annealing algorithms and their benchmark results are shown. The enhanced simulated annealing approach proposed herein showed better results for the majority of the studied cases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".