MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416513214 · doi:10.1109/tsmc.2025.3628274

A New Explicit Penalty Method for Evolutionary Multimodal Optimization

2025· article· W4416513214 on OpenAlexaff
Wu Song, Bing-Chuan Wang, Xinzhi Liu, Tingwen Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersHunan Provincial Postdoctoral Science FoundationNatural Science Foundation of Hunan ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPenalty methodLeverage (statistics)Flexibility (engineering)Local optimumOptimization problemPopulationEvolutionary algorithmFunction (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When employing evolutionary algorithms (EAs) to solve multimodal optimization problems (MMOPs), effectively utilizing diversity information is crucial to prevent the population from converging to a single peak. This requires balancing diversity and objective value—a challenge that inherently constitutes a penalty problem. Although some implicit penalty methods have been proposed to address this issue, most lack flexibility in penalty formulation. In this study, we present a novel explicit penalty method (EPM) designed to effectively leverage diversity information for multimodal optimization. First, the diversity of a solution is quantified by its distance to the nearest neighbor with a better objective value. Then, an explicit penalty function is formulated by integrating diversity and objective value. This function facilitates the capture of multiple peaks and balances the search among them. If a reasonable number of peaks are identified, a local search is applied to each for refinement; otherwise, a global search is conducted across the decision space. Through this adaptive process, EPM locates multiple optima both efficiently and accurately. Extensive experiments demonstrate that EPM outperforms several multimodal optimization methods, including 11 popular approaches, eight recent state-of-the-art algorithms, and an IEEE CEC competition winner. Moreover, even when integrated with classic differential evolution (DE), EPM exhibits highly competitive performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics SystemsSame topicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207