A Study of the Application of Chaos to the Genetic Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work focuses on the use of a genetic algorithm for optimization in a search-based problem. The Genetic Algorithm (GA) is a subset of evolutionary algorithms that models biological processes to optimize highly complex functions. A GA allows a population composed of many individuals to evolve under specified selection rules to a state that maximizes the “fitness” (i.e. minimize the objective function). A major advantage of using GA over most stochastic techniques is its parallelism, which speeds up the simulation results leading to faster convergence. With mutation, the GA is also less likely to get stuck in local minima compared to other stochastic techniques. However, some notable drawbacks of the Standard GA (SGA) include slow convergence and a possibility of being stuck in local optimum solution. The SGA uses a random process to generate parameter values for the initial population generation, crossover and mutation processes. Random number generators are designed to result in either uniform distributions or Gaussian distributions. We conjecture that the evolutionary processes in genetics are driven by a random non-linear deterministic dynamic process rather than a random non-deterministic process. Therefore, in the GA evolutionary process, a chaotic map is incorporated into the initial population generation, the crossover and mutation processes of the SGA; this is termed the Chaotic GA (CGA). The properties of a chaotic system that provides additional benefits over randomly generated solutions are sensitivity to initial conditions, topological density and topological transitivity (robust diversity). These properties ensure that the CGA is able to explore the entire solution space. Introducing chaos into the whole process of a standard genetic algorithm may help improve convergence time and accuracy. Simulation was done using Matlab and Java.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".