Genetic Engineering Algorithm (GEA): An Efficient Metaheuristic Algorithm for Solving Combinatorial Optimization Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic Algorithms (GAs) are known for their efficiency in solving combinatorial optimization problems, thanks to their ability to explore diverse solution spaces, handle various representations, exploit parallelism, preserve good solutions, adapt to changing dynamics, handle combinatorial diversity, and provide heuristic search. However, limitations such as premature convergence, lack of problem-specific knowledge, and randomness of crossover and mutation operators make GAs generally inefficient in finding an optimal solution. To address these limitations, this paper proposes a new metaheuristic algorithm called the Genetic Engineering Algorithm (GEA) that draws inspiration from genetic engineering concepts. GEA redesigns the traditional GA while incorporating new search methods to isolate, purify, insert, and express new genes based on existing ones, leading to the emergence of desired traits and the production of specific chromosomes based on the selected genes. Comparative evaluations against stateof-the-art algorithms on benchmark instances demonstrate the superior performance of GEA, showcasing its potential as an innovative and efficient solution for combinatorial 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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".