MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391912930 · doi:10.1145/3583131.3590467

Evolutionary Mixed-Integer Optimization with Explicit Constraints

2023· article· en· W4391912930 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInteger (computer science)Mathematical optimizationInteger programmingComputer scienceMathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Determining the feasibility of a candidate solution to a constrained black-box optimization problem may either be similarly expensive as the process of determining its quality, or it may be much cheaper. Constraints that allow obtaining degrees of feasibility or constraint violation without incurring significant computational costs are referred to as explicit. We present an evolutionary algorithm for solving mixed-integer black-box optimization problems with explicit constraints. The algorithm wraps active-set evolution strategies, an algorithm for solving continuous black-box problems with explicit constraints, in a branching mechanism that allows enforcing integrality constraints. In computer experiments we demonstrate that the algorithm solves a set of mixed-integer problems with significantly fewer objective function evaluations than several algorithms that do not exploit the explicitness of the constraints.

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 score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.223 · 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