Comparative Study of Decomposition and Merging Evolutionary Algorithms for Large-Scale Optimization Problems
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
Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) have been shown to be effective when applied to various classes of optimization problems. However, EAs suffer performance degradation as the number of dimensions in a given Large Scale Optimization Problem (LSOP) rises. To improve the performance of EAs for LSOPs, the Cooperative Co-evolutionary (CC) framework has been introduced in the literature. In previous works, novel decomposing and merging methods were proposed for Cooperative Particle Swarm Optimization (CPSO). We propose decomposition and merging variants based on Differential Evolution (DE) and Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) and compare them with the CPSO variants. Two well-known large-scale optimization benchmark problems are used for comparison, i.e., CEC’2010 and CEC’2013 problems of increasing decision variables of up to 2000. The Decomposition Cooperative Differential evolution (DCDE) and Merging-CPSO (MCPSO) variants generally performed best. However, MCPSO saw a greater variance in its performance while DCDE’s performance was more stable. Additionally, Cooperative Artificial Bee Colony (CABC) performed particularly well for the separable functions, outright winning or tying every function. For the CEC’2013 benchmarks, which are designed to more closely resemble real-world applications, DCDE was the top performing algorithm on the partially-separable and nonseparable functions, though Merging-CCDE and CPSO algorithms were also competitive on the partially separable functions. The separable functions saw their bests results with CABC, while Merging-CPSO and Merging-CABC also performed well.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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