Hybridizing slime mould algorithm with simulated annealing algorithm: a hybridized statistical approach for numerical and engineering design problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The existing slime mould algorithm clones the uniqueness of the phase of oscillation of slime mould conduct and exhibits slow convergence in local search space due to poor exploitation phase. This research work exhibits to discover the best solution for objective function by commingling slime mould algorithm and simulated annealing algorithm for better variation of parameters and named as hybridized slime mould algorithm-simulated annealing algorithm. The simulated annealing algorithm improves and accelerates the effectiveness of slime mould technique as well as assists to take off from the local optimum. To corroborate the worth and usefulness of the introduced strategy, nonconvex, nonlinear, and typical engineering design difficulties were analyzed for standard benchmarks and interdisciplinary engineering design concerns. The proposed technique version is used to evaluate six, five, five unimodal, multimodal and fixed-dimension benchmark functions, respectively, also including 11 kinds of interdisciplinary engineering design difficulties. The technique's outcomes were compared to the results of other on-hand optimization methods, and the experimental results show that the suggested approach outperforms the other optimization techniques.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".