A co-evolutionary algorithm with adaptive penalty function for constrained optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Several constrained optimization problems have been adequately solved over the years thanks to the advances in the area of metaheuristics. Nevertheless, the question as to which search logic performs better on constrained optimization often arises. In this paper, we present Dual Search Optimization (DSO), a co-evolutionary algorithm that includes an adaptive penalty function to handle constrained problems. Compared to other self-adaptive metaheuristics, one of the main advantages of DSO is that it is able auto-construct its own perturbation logics, i.e., the ways solutions are modified to create new ones during the optimization process. This is accomplished by co-evolving the solutions (encoded as vectors of integer/real values) and perturbation strategies (encoded as Genetic Programming trees), in order to adapt the search to the problem. In addition to that, the adaptive penalty function allows the algorithm to handle constraints very effectively, yet with a minor additional algorithmic overhead. We compare DSO with several algorithms from the state-of-the-art on two sets of problems, namely: (1) seven well-known constrained engineering design problems and (2) the CEC 2017 benchmark for constrained optimization. Our results show that DSO can achieve state-of-the-art performances, being capable to automatically adjust its behavior to the problem at hand.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".