MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285805441 · doi:10.1145/3520304.3528811

Particle swarm optimization with average-fitness based selection

2022· article· en· W4285805441 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle swarm optimizationSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceMulti-swarm optimizationMathematical optimizationPosition (finance)Swarm behaviourMetaheuristicSpace (punctuation)Fitness landscapeModalArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematicsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The search trajectories of particles in Particle Swarm Optimization are influenced by attractions towards personal best positions. These personal best positions are meant to represent promising areas of the search space for further exploration and exploitation. However, the best position that has been visited by a particle may not be the best area for further exploration. Traditional fitness-based selection is suitable for identifying areas of the search space for further exploitation. Average-Fitness Based Selection is introduced as an alternative to identify the best areas for further exploration. Initial experiments demonstrate that this alternate form of selection can improve the performance of Particle Swarm Optimization in a multi-modal search space.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it