A Computational Comparison of Three Nature-Inspired, Population-Based Metaheuristic Algorithms for Modelling-to-Generate Alternatives
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
In “real life” decision-making situations, inevitably, there are numerous unmodelled components, not incorporated into the underlying mathematical programming models, that hold substantial influence on the overall acceptability of the solutions calculated. Under such circumstances, it is frequently beneficial to produce a set of dissimilar–yet “good”–alternatives that contribute very different perspectives to the original problems. The approach for creating maximally different solutions is known as modelling-to-generate alternatives (MGA). Recently, a data structure that permits MGA using any population-based solution procedure has been formulated that can efficiently construct sets of maximally different solution alternatives. This new approach permits the production of an overall best solution together with n locally optimal, maximally different alternatives in a single computational run. The efficacy of this novel computational approach is tested on four benchmark optimization problems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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