Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 44 references

A diversity-enhanced genetic algorithm for efficient exploration of parameter spaces

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Penalizing similarity during survivor selection lets a genetic algorithm recover a diverse set of viable parameter points instead of collapsing onto one optimum.

desk verdict A useful GA package whose central diversity claim lacks an ablation and a fair baseline; overclaimed but not broken. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17104 v1 pith:PUM2W377 submitted 2024-12-22 cs.NE hep-ph

Jonas Wessén , Eliel Camargo-Molina This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NEhep-ph
keywords geneticalgorithmparameterspacescandiversity-enhancedselectionsurvivorTwo-HiggsDoubletModeldifferentialevolutioncategoricalgenesPythonpackage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that when the goal of a parameter scan is to recover every viable region rather than a single best point, a genetic algorithm can be made dramatically more useful by penalizing similarity during survivor selection. The authors propose a diversity-enhanced GA in which each chosen survivor reduces the fitness of individuals too close to it, with the penalty shaped as a Gaussian in a dynamically rescaled distance. They test the algorithm on a seven-dimensional particle-physics scan of a Two-Higgs Doublet Model and on a two-dimensional toy landscape. Their measured outcomes are that the GA reaches high-fitness populations orders of magnitude faster than uniform random sampling, and that its final population is markedly more spread out than that produced by differential evolution, at the cost of some speed. The paper packages the algorithm as an installable Python module with support for numerical and categorical genes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the diversity-enhanced survivor-selection step: a Gaussian similarity penalty, $D(I_j,I_k)=D_0 \exp(-r^2/r_0^2)$, subtracted from the fitness of every remaining individual each time a survivor is selected. The distance $r$ is computed with a dynamically weighted Euclidean measure that divides each squared coordinate difference by $(|(I_j)_i|+|(I_k)_i|+\epsilon)^2$, so that parameters of very different scales contribute comparably. By default $r_0$ is set to one-tenth of the average pairwise distance in the initial population, and $D_0$ to 1. This mechanism carries the argument because it is what keeps the population spread across distinct viable regions while elitism preserves the best points.

What would settle it

Reproduce the two-dimensional comparison with the diversity penalty disabled ($D_0=0$) while keeping all other settings: if the GA still returns a final population spread of about 1.5, the diversity penalty is not doing the work; if the spread collapses, it is.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that iterative fitness punishment for similarity is enough to turn a standard elitist GA into an effective explorer of all good-enough regions. After each survivor is chosen, every remaining individual's fitness is reduced by $D_0 \exp(-r^2/r_0^2)$, where $r$ is a dynamically weighted Euclidean distance between the two individuals; identical individuals lose $D_0$, and individuals closer than $r_0$ lose a non-negligible amount. This is the mechanism the authors identify as preventing the population from collapsing onto one local fitness peak. In the 2HDM benchmark the best GA variants reach average fitness values orders of magnitude above those of a comparable random scan, and in the two-dimensional test the GA's final population has an average pairwise spread of $1.53 \pm 0.02$ versus $0.5 \pm 0.2$ for differential evolution, while differential evolution is faster and reaches slightly higher average fitness. The authors conclude that the diversity-enhanced GA is preferable when the task is to locate isolated viable regions, and that a mutation-only variant is the most reliable crossover choice.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark evidence rests on the fixed penalty strength $D_0=1$ and the fixed or default $r_0$ values, with the dynamic distance 'found to work well'; if those settings have to be retuned for each new fitness landscape, the claimed general advantage over random scans and other GAs is not yet established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the type-I 2HDM benchmark, the diversity-enhanced GA reaches high average survivor fitness orders of magnitude faster than a uniform random scan with the same cost per evaluation.
  • A mutation-only GA is the most reliable default; the choice of crossover can improve efficiency slightly, but a poor crossover choice hurts performance more than the absence of crossover.
  • Producing $O(n)$ offspring per generation performs about as well as $O(n^2)$ offspring, so runtime is not wasted by generating vast numbers of offspring.
  • Compared with differential evolution on a multi-modal two-dimensional landscape, the GA returns a final population roughly three times more spread out, meaning it locates more distinct high-fitness solutions, though differential evolution is faster.
  • The same selection procedure extends to categorical genes by using either/or crossover and a Hamming distance, so the method is not limited to continuous parameter scans.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable implication the paper leaves open is that the $r_0$ and $D_0$ defaults will need problem-specific tuning: on landscapes whose fitness scale differs greatly from the penalty scale, the diversity pressure will be either negligible or dominant. Varying $r_0$ and $D_0$ in the 2HDM benchmark would reveal how sensitive the reported gains are.
  • The dynamic distance makes the penalty invariant to parameter units, which suggests the algorithm should transfer to problems with mixed-dimensional parameters; one extension would be to benchmark it against explicit niching methods on standard multimodal test functions.
  • Because the package exposes a user-supplied distance function, one could adapt the same diversity penalty to structured gene spaces beyond simple Hamming distance, for instance tree- or graph-valued genes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a Python package, lightweight-genetic-algorithm, implementing a genetic algorithm with a diversity-enhanced survivor selection procedure: after each survivor is chosen, a Gaussian similarity penalty (Eq. 2) is subtracted from the fitnesses of the remaining candidates, using either an Euclidean or a dynamically weighted distance (Eq. 3 or Eq. 4). The authors validate the method on a type-I Two-Higgs Doublet Model parameter scan, studying population size and crossover choices, comparing against uniform random sampling and SciPy's differential evolution, and illustrating the package on a toy two-dimensional landscape and on categorical protein-sequence genes. The central claim is that this diversity-enhanced GA dramatically outperforms random scans and other GA-based implementations in finding diverse, good-enough solutions.

Significance. If the central claim is supported, the package would be a practically useful, transparent and lightweight tool for parameter-space scans whose goal is to collect all viable regions rather than a single optimum, with applications in BSM phenomenology and protein-sequence design. The 2HDM comparison against uniform random sampling is a credible and relevant demonstration, and the support for categorical genes, multiprocessing, and user-defined distances are concrete strengths of the software contribution. However, the validation as presented does not isolate the proposed diversity mechanism: there is no ablation against the same GA with fitness-proportionate selection, no sensitivity analysis for the penalty hyperparameters D0 and r0, and the toy benchmark is explicitly tuned to the default penalty scale. These gaps are load-bearing because the paper's headline claim depends on attributing the observed exploratory behavior to the diversity penalty.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III D, Eq. (8)] The headline claim of outperforming 'other GA-based implementations' is not supported by the reported baselines. The only non-random evolutionary baseline is SciPy's differential evolution, which is an evolutionary algorithm but not a genetic algorithm in the sense implemented here, and no standard GA or no run of the same package with selection_method='Fitness Proportionate' (Appendix A.3) is reported. An ablation that turns the diversity penalty off is needed to attribute the observed exploration to the proposed mechanism rather than to standard elitism, mutation, and crossover.
  2. [§II E and §III A-B] All 2HDM scans use the diversity-enhanced selection with D0=1 and r0=1 together with the dynamic distance of Eq. (4). Since the dynamic distance is scale-invariant and can yield typical values well below 1, the penalty exp(-r^2/r0^2) may be nearly constant across candidates, in which case the sequential subtraction would not change fitness rankings and the diversity mechanism would be effectively inert. The paper does not report the distribution of penalties, a sensitivity scan over r0 and D0, or an ablation, so the observed gains over random scans could in principle be produced entirely by standard GA operators.
  3. [§III D, Eq. (8)] The toy benchmark is explicitly tuned to the algorithm's default penalty scale: the text states that 'The factor 10 was chosen to ensure the fitness values and the penalty function (Eq. 2) are roughly of the same order of magnitude with default values.' This makes the toy comparison partially circular, because it demonstrates the behavior of the penalty at its preferred scale rather than testing the algorithm independently. The comparison should be repeated for several fitness amplitudes, and the penalty hyperparameters should be varied, so that the reported advantage is not an artifact of matching the default scale.
  4. [§II E, Eq. (4)] The dynamic distance is introduced with the statement that it was 'found to work well for the type of parameter scan considered in Section III and in [18]'; in other words, the distance function is tuned on the same problem class that is later used for validation. The paper should provide an independent validation set, or explicitly state which hyperparameters were fixed before the reported runs and which were selected after inspecting the benchmarks, so that readers can assess the risk of overfitting to the validation task.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§I] The sentence 'GAs are are population-based optimization algorithms' contains a duplicated word; please correct it.
  2. [§III A] The sentence 'the algorithm's performance depend on population size and crossover method' should read 'depends'.
  3. [Fig. 2] The x-axis label 'Fitness evaluations /106' is ambiguous; it should read '10^6' or a similar explicit notation.
  4. [Eq. (8)] The condition 'if |x1,2| > 1.5' is ambiguous; it should be written as 'if |x1| > 1.5 or |x2| > 1.5'.
  5. [Appendix A.1] The GitHub URL shown in the text and abstract contains spaces ('lightweight genetic algorithm'); it should be 'lightweight-genetic-algorithm'.
  6. [Fig. 4] The axis labels in Fig. 4 appear garbled in the manuscript text ('□1 0 1', '□10', '0', '10'); please check the figure rendering.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GA's diversity mechanism is implemented and benchmarked against external baselines; the acknowledged tuning choices are test-design choices, not derived-from-output predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical demonstrations of a proposed selection rule, not derivations that reduce to their own inputs. Eq. (1)-(2) define the diversity penalty; Eq. (8) is a test function chosen with amplitude 10 'to ensure the fitness values and the penalty function (Eq. 2) are roughly of the same order of magnitude with default values.' This is an explicit test-setup calibration, not a fitted parameter later relabeled as a prediction, and the comparison with SciPy's DE measures final-population spread as an external outcome. The statement that the dynamic distance of Eq. (4) was 'found to work well for the type of parameter scan considered in Section III and in [18]' is a self-referential heuristic (the prior paper is by the same authors), but it is not used as a proof of uniqueness or as a justification that forbids alternatives; it is reported as an empirical preference. The absence of an ablation against Fitness Proportionate selection (Appendix A.3) and the fixed r0=D0=1 choices in the 2HDM benchmarks weaken the evidence for the mechanism's causal role, but this is a completeness/rigor gap, not circularity. No equation in the paper is equivalent by construction to a claimed output, and no fitted value is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The algorithm introduces no new physical entity. It relies on several hand-set numerical parameters (r0, D0, mutation rate, toy fitness scale) and on domain-specific benchmark assumptions. The most load-bearing assumption is that the Gaussian similarity penalty with the dynamic distance generalizes beyond the problems on which it was tuned.

free parameters (5)
  • r0 = 1.0 for 2HDM scans; default sqrt(<r2>)/10 in package
    Controls the distance below which individuals are penalized as similar, Eq. (6). Fixed to 1 in the 2HDM benchmark without reported sensitivity analysis; the default value depends on initial population spread.
  • D0 = 1.0
    Maximum penalty for identical individuals, Eq. (2). Set to 1 in all benchmark runs; together with r0 it sets the diversity pressure and is chosen by hand.
  • Toy fitness scale A = 10
    In the toy benchmark, Eq. (8), A=10 is chosen to ensure the fitness values and the diversity penalty are roughly of the same order of magnitude with default values. This tunes the comparison in favor of the GA's default parameters.
  • epsilon regulator = 1e-15
    Small regulator in the dynamic distance, Eq. (4), to prevent division by zero; a hand-set constant with negligible effect.
  • Mutation probability p_mutation = 0.1 in paper; 1.0/n_genes in package default
    Mutation probability is a user-set parameter without benchmark-specific optimization; the default differs between the paper's description and the package.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The Gaussian penalty kernel D = D0 exp(-r^2/r0^2) provides an appropriate diversity pressure for finding diverse good solutions.
    The central diversity mechanism in Section II.E is asserted without proof or comparison with other niching methods; its success is an empirical assumption.
  • domain assumption The dynamic weighted distance in Eq. (4) with epsilon=1e-15 is a suitable distance measure for parameter spaces with different scales.
    The authors state it works well for the 2HDM scan and prior work [18]; no general justification is provided.
  • domain assumption The 2HDM fitness function built from HiggsBounds 4.3.1, 2HDMC 1.7.0 and HiggsSignals 1.4.0 (2016 versions) correctly represents physical viability.
    Benchmark validity depends on these external tools and the hard and soft constraint design in Section III.
  • domain assumption The toy landscape 10 cos(20 x1 x2) with the hard constraint |xi| <= 1.5 is representative of real parameter exploration tasks.
    A single synthetic function chosen to test diversity; its representativeness is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A diversity-enhanced genetic algorithm for efficient exploration of parameter spaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PUM2W377

@misc{pith2026241217104,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A diversity-enhanced genetic algorithm for efficient exploration of parameter spaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PUM2W377}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17104}
}
read the original abstract

We present a Python package together with a practical guide for the implementation of a lightweight diversity-enhanced genetic algorithm (GA) approach for the exploration of multi-dimensional parameter spaces. Searching a parameter space for regions with desirable properties, e.g. compatibility with experimental data, poses a type of optimization problem wherein the focus lies on pinpointing all "good enough" solutions, rather than a single "best solution". Our approach dramatically outperforms random scans and other GA-based implementations in this aspect. We validate the effectiveness of our approach by applying it to a particle physics problem, showcasing its ability to identify promising parameter points in isolated, viable regions meeting experimental constraints. The companion Python package is applicable to optimization problems beyond those considered in this work, including scanning over discrete parameters (categories). A detailed guide for its usage is provided.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17104 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Flowchart of the main algorithm. Beginning with a randomly generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Fitness evaluations vs. average ˜p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Average survivor fitness vs. number of fitness evaluations for the best performing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Comparison between (a) the GA and (b) SciPy’s DE when used for locating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [18]

    Teodorescu and D

    L. Teodorescu and D. Sherwood, Computer Physics Communications 178, 409 (2008)

    work page 2008

  2. [1]

    Here, we discuss the four methods implemented in our algorithm: midpoint crossover, either/or crossover, between crossover, and no crossover

    Crossover methods Crossover is defined as a function M : Ii × Ij → Ik, where Ii and Ij are parents and Ik are the offspring. Here, we discuss the four methods implemented in our algorithm: midpoint crossover, either/or crossover, between crossover, and no crossover. • Midpoint Crossover: This method generates offspring by taking the arithmetic average of ...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Pairing methods Aside from the crossover method, one also needs to decide which individuals get to participate in crossover. We consider the two following extremal scenarios: • O(n2): This method performs crossover for every pair of individuals in the population, resulting in n(n − 1)/2 offspring per generation. • O(n): This method selects n random pairs ...

    work page

  4. [3]

    distance

    Mutation Mutation introduces random changes in the offspring’s parameters which is important for the GA to not be constrained to the parameter space region populated by the initial population. Once an offspring individual Ii has been produced through one of the above described crossover methods, each of it’s genes ( Ii)k has a probability pmutation of bei...

    work page 2016

  5. [4]

    R. L. Workman and Others (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  6. [5]

    F. A. de Souza, M. C. Rom˜ ao, N. F. Castro, M. Nikjoo, and W. Porod, Physical Review D 107, 035004 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    J. H. Holland, Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an introductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence (MIT press, 1992)

    1992

  8. [7]

    Shapiro, in Advanced Course on Artificial Intelligence (Springer, 1999) pp

    J. Shapiro, in Advanced Course on Artificial Intelligence (Springer, 1999) pp. 146–168

    work page 1999

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    Goldberg and K

    D. Goldberg and K. Sastry, Genetic algorithms: the design of innovation (Springer, 2007)

    2007

  2. [9]

    M. M. B. Vellasco, R. S. Zebulum, and M. A. Pacheco, Evolutionary Electronics: Automatic Design of Electronic Circuits and Systems by Genetic Algorithms , 1st ed. (CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2001)

    2001

  3. [10]

    Stanislawska, K

    K. Stanislawska, K. Krawiec, and Z. W. Kundzewicz, Comput. Math. Appl. 64, 3717 (2012)

    2012

  4. [11]

    Sugawara, Computer Physics Communications 140, 366 (2001)

    M. Sugawara, Computer Physics Communications 140, 366 (2001)

    2001

  5. [12]

    Q. Guo, R. Wang, J. Guo, B. Li, K. Song, X. Tan, G. Liu, J. Bian, and Y. Yang, (2023). 19

    2023

  6. [13]

    Unger and J

    R. Unger and J. Moult, Journal of Molecular Biology 231, 75 (1993)

    1993

  7. [14]

    J. T. Pedersen and J. Moult, Journal of Molecular Biology 269, 240 (1997)

    1997

  8. [15]

    P. Y. Chew, J. A. Joseph, R. Collepardo-Guevara, and A. Reinhardt, Chemical Science 14, 1820 (2023)

    2023

  9. [16]

    B. C. Allanach, D. Grellscheid, and F. Quevedo, Journal of High Energy Physics 2004, 069 (2004)

    2004

  10. [17]

    Cranmer and R

    K. Cranmer and R. S. Bowman, Computer Physics Communications 167, 165 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    Akrami, P

    Y. Akrami, P. Scott, J. Edsj¨ o, J. Conrad, and L. Bergstr¨ om, Journal of High Energy Physics 2010 (2010), 10.1007/JHEP04(2010)057

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    Ruehle, JHEP 08, 038 (2017), arXiv:1706.07024 [hep-th]

    F. Ruehle, JHEP 08, 038 (2017), arXiv:1706.07024 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    J. E. Camargo-Molina, T. Mandal, R. Pasechnik, and J. Wess´ en, JHEP 03, 024 (2018), arXiv:1711.03551 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    X.-L. Luo, J. Feng, and H.-H. Zhang, Computer Physics Communications 250, 106818 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Biek¨ otter and M

    T. Biek¨ otter and M. O. Olea-Romacho, Journal of High Energy Physics 2021, 1 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    T. Pal, J. Wess´ en, S. Das, and H. S. Chan, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 15, 8248 (2024), pMID: 39105804

    2024

  17. [25]

    R. K. Das and R. V. Pappu, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110, 13392 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    Sawle and K

    L. Sawle and K. Ghosh, The Journal of Chemical Physics 143, 085101 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    Y. H. Lin, J. D. Forman-Kay, and H. S. Chan, Physical Review Letters 117 (2016), 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.178101

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    McCarty, K

    J. McCarty, K. T. Delaney, S. P. Danielsen, G. H. Fredrickson, and J. E. Shea, Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 10, 1644 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    T. Pal, J. Wess´ en, S. Das, and H. S. Chan, Physical Review E 103 (2021), 10.1103/Phys- RevE.103.042406

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    Wess´ en, T

    J. Wess´ en, T. Pal, S. Das, Y. H. Lin, and H. S. Chan, Journal of Physical Chemistry B 125, 4337 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Wess´ en, T

    J. Wess´ en, T. Pal, and H. S. Chan, Journal of Chemical Physics 156 (2022), 10.1063/5.0088326. 20

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    Wess´ en, S

    J. Wess´ en, S. Das, T. Pal, and H. S. Chan, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 126, 9222 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Y. H. Lin, J. Wess´ en, T. Pal, S. Das, and H. S. Chan, Methods in Molecular Biology 2563 (2023), 10.1007/978-1-0716-2663-4 3

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Blank and K

    J. Blank and K. Deb, IEEE Access 8, 89497 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Pygad: An intuitive genetic algorithm python library,

    A. F. Gad, “Pygad: An intuitive genetic algorithm python library,” (2021), arXiv:2106.06158 [cs.NE]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Branco, P

    G. Branco, P. Ferreira, L. Lavoura, M. Rebelo, M. Sher, et al. , Phys.Rept. 516, 1 (2012), arXiv:1106.0034 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Bechtle, O

    P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, O. St ˚ al, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein, and K. E. Williams, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2693 (2014), arXiv:1311.0055 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Eriksson, J

    D. Eriksson, J. Rathsman, and O. St ˚ al, Comput. Phys. Commun. 181, 189 (2010), arXiv:0902.0851 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Bechtle, S

    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, O. St ˚ al, T. Stefaniak, and G. Weiglein, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2711 (2014), arXiv:1305.1933 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Das and P

    S. Das and P. N. Suganthan, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 15, 4 (2011). Appendix A: Lightweight Genetic Algorithm Package

    2011

  33. [41]

    Installation The GA presented in this work is implemented in the lightweight-genetic-algorithm Python module which is installable via pip as pip install lightweight - genetic - a l g o r i t h m The source code and documentation can be found at: github.com/JoseEliel/lightweigh...

  34. [42]

    F eatures The lightweight-genetic-algorithm Python module contains several features that allows the user to easily set up a GA for a wide range types of optimization problems. 21 These features include • Support for Numerical and Categorical Genes : The package can handle opti...

  35. [43]

    A GeneticAlgorithm instance is created with the required input arguments: • fitness function: A function computing the fitness score of an individual

    User guide The primary class in this package is GeneticAlgorithm. A GeneticAlgorithm instance is created with the required input arguments: • fitness function: A function computing the fitness score of an individual. This function should receive an array of genes as its first ...

  36. [44]

    charge blockiness

    Examples Example 1: Numerical genes Figure A1 contains the Python code for a simple example of how to use the package. In this example, an individual represents a point in the xy-plane, and the fitness function takes the form f (x, y) = −A p x2 + y2 − R 2 , (A1) which has an e...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.